Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

WOODGRANGE PARK CEMETERY BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time tomorrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — ENVIRONMENT

Homelessness

Mr. Bayley: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he plans to announce any new measures to reduce the number of homeless people sleeping rough this coming winter in towns and cities outside London.

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Michael Howard): The Government are providing more than £6 million in grants this year to voluntary organisations throughout England which give direct practical help to homeless people. The primary responsibility for help to people sleeping rough in severe weather rests with local authorities, and the local authority associations have accepted that responsibility in the context of the "Winter Watch" guidelines published recently by Crisis and Shelter.

Mr. Bayley: Will the Secretary of State consider increasing his grants to voluntary bodies? I have just received a copy of the annual report of the Peasholme centre, a York charity which provides a hostel for single homeless people. In the past 12 months, its number of clients in York has increased by 60 per cent. to 445. Of those, three out of five—some 267 clients—were found to have slept rough at some time in the previous year. The number of young clients aged 24 or under has more than doubled in 12 months, increasing from 60 to 130, of whom 33 are aged 16 and 17.
The figures are increasing sharply, and I urge the Secretary of State to do considerably more than he is doing at present to deal with the plight of single homeless people.

Mr. Howard: According to the census taken on the night of 21 to 22 April 1991, only six people were sleeping rough in York on that night. I believe that the assistance that we are providing is effective, and is helping to provide a solution to the problems, but I shall look with interest at the figures cited by the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. David Nicholson: My right hon. and learned Friend will know that families face housing difficulties not only in the larger towns outside London, but in smaller towns and

rural areas such as my constituency. Will he and his colleagues continue to press the Treasury—I am sure that they have been doing so—for assistance with the construction of low-cost housing, especially through greater flexibility in the release of capital receipts from council house sales? Such an initiative will not only meet certain social needs but will revive the construction industry, which is greatly in need of revival.

Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend has put his points with great force. He knows that what he says is always taken extremely seriously.

Mr. Robert Ainsworth: Is the Secretary of State aware that 5,000 homeless people are now being dealt with by the Cyrenians in Coventry—a 32 per cent. increase over the past two years? Does he realise that the Cyrenians' entire evening service depends on a temporary grant from his Department which is due to run out in March? Will he take the necessary measures to ensure that the service continues beyond that date?

Mr. Howard: First, I pay tribute to voluntary bodies such as the one that the hon. Gentleman mentioned which are doing such admirable work in partnership with my Department. We take our responsibilities very seriously, and I believe that the resources that we provide are being used effectively, but I have noted what the hon. Gentleman said about next year.

Local Government

Mr. Deva: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has for giving local people more say in the structure of local government in their areas.

The Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities (Mr. John Redwood): I have asked the Local Government Boundary Commission for England, which is reviewing the structure in shire England, to pay special attention to the views of local people and where they feel that they belong. The commission will be using a variety of techniques from radio phone-ins through use of the local press and opinion surveys. It will invite a wide range of representation of local opinion.

Mr. Deva: When my hon. Friend announces the commission's decision on Heathrow airport, will he take into account the strongly held views of local people?

Mr. Redwood: I can reassure my hon. Friend. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State will take into account all the evidence—including local opinion—relating to that crucial boundary issue in my hon. Friend's constituency.

Mr. Tony Banks: Is the Minister aware that at the time of the abolition of the Greater London council two thirds of Londoners expressed a wish for the retention of a strategic authority in the capital city? A recent opinion poll in the Evening Standard shows that two thirds of Londoners still want a strategic authority. If people's views are to be taken into account, why cannot Londoners' views be taken into account in terms of local government structure?

Mr. Redwood: Londoners do not want extra costs and extra bureaucracy. They remember how bad the GLC was.


I am amazed that the hon. Gentleman should have the effrontery to suggest that London needs that kind of burden again after the absurdly high expenditure on unnecessary causes which was the hallmark on the GLC. Strategic issues for London are dealt with by the boroughs coming together and by the Cabinet Committee on London which my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State chairs. Of course there is a strategic vision for London: it is co-ordinated by the Government.

Mr. Matthew Banks: Can my hon. Friend confirm that following the passage of the Local Government Bill earlier this year my constituents, and those of other hon. Members, will have the opportunity to apply for unitary authority status? Will he encourage my constituents in Southport to take advantage of that excellent piece of legislation and press the Local Government Commission to allow my constituency of Southport to recapture the unitary status that it lost in 1974 so that it may get out of Merseyside and return to Lancashire, where it rightly belongs?

Mr. Redwood: I am aware of my hon. Friend's keen concern about this matter. We have set out the parameters for the review. My hon. Friend knows that the areas specified have been made clear by the Secretary of State and that they will be reviewed in the series set out for the Local Government Boundary Commission. If the commission thinks that there is a big boundary issue or a big council management issue which overruns the boundary and spills into an area not under review, it can put that point to the Secretary of State who, on reflection, could modify his request if he thinks appropriate. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has heard my hon. Friend's comments and will give due consideration to them, should recommendations come forward from the Local Government Boundary Commission.

Mr. John Evans: Will the Minister acknowledge that people are as much concerned about the financial structure of local government as about its physical structure? Is he aware that the citizens of St. Helens are appalled at the unjust and corrupt standard spending assessments which effectively rob St. Helens of millions of pounds in rate support grant, which is translated into reduced services and increased council tax demands? Will the Minister agree to meet representatives of St. Helens and the Webber Craig authorities to discuss their standard spending assessments?

Mr. Redwood: The grant allocations and standard spending assessments are based on objective criteria. They take into account how many people and what kind of needs there are in the area. There is a clear method that we set out each year for hon. Members to review. The SSAs are not corrupt. That is a dreadful calumny to cast upon the officials who compiled them and upon Ministers who bring them to the House for debate. In the normal course of business we shall, of course, consider representations when the time arises.

Mr. Dunn: Will my hon. Friend please give an absolute guarantee that the integrity of the present boundaries of the county of Kent will be maintained at all costs and against all odds and that there is no question at all of part of my constituency being hived off into the former Greater London council area?

Mr. Redwood: I can give no absolute guarantees, but my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State is also a Member of Parliament for a Kent constituency and I am sure that he is a keen defender of Kent as a county. However, the issues will be reviewed in the usual way. The Local Government Commission only has power to recommend changes in boundaries between the areas that it is reviewing. My hon. Friend may take considerable comfort from that.

Darwin Initiative

Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on his official visit to the royal botanic gardens in Edinburgh to discuss the Darwin initiative.

Mr. Howard: I visited the royal botanic gardens in Edinburgh on 18 September at the invitation of Professor Ingram, the Regis Keeper, to look at the excellent and very important research work being carried out particularly in plant systematics, biodiversity and conservation. I visited the living collections, the herbarium collections and the library collections and saw evidence of the extensive scientific and educational programmes undertaken there. I was extremely impressed by the valuable work being carried out there.

Mr. Dalyell: But how much new money will there be for Darwin?

Mr. Howard: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman looks forward with the same pleasurable anticipation as I do to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer's autumn statement tomorrow.

Mr. Mark Robinson: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the Wildlife and Countryside (Amendment) Act 1991 is already making a contribution to areas covered by the Darwin initiative?

Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is right. We make a distinguished contribution to the cause of biodiversity, but the Darwin initiative will mark a new stage in our contribution to that cause. I look forward to being able to make announcements before too long which will take the initiative forward.

Rio Agreement

Dr. Twinn: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what he intends to do consequent upon the Rio agreement and as President of the EC Council of Environment Ministers to improve the implementation of EC law on environmental matters in all member states.

The Minister for the Environment and Countryside (Mr. David Maclean): The need for more effective enforcement of environmental laws is one of the central themes of our presidency. I am pleased to say that the Commission has now agreed to my right hon. and learned Friend's request to prepare regular reports on implementation for discussion by the Environment Council, starting in December.

Dr. Twinn: Britain has one of the best records of compliance with European environmental laws, but is it not ridiculous for us to be firm and good supporters of the European Community but to allow our partners to put us


at a disadvantage due to the increased costs of compliance which result from their not keeping the European laws? Will my hon. Friend make it a matter of priority for the Government to use their presidency to ensure compliance by other member states?

Mr. Maclean: I assure my hon. Friend that we have an excellent record on compliance, and we are determined to see enforcement evened up throughout the Community.
I am pleased to tell my hon. Friend that only last week in Chester, at the invitation of the British, we had the first meeting of all the environmental inspectorates from around the Community. Excellent progress was made in the network of inspectors. The inspectors have agreed unanimously to maintain and continue the network with a rotating presidency. Even now they are working on measures to ensure even-handed compliance and a high level playing field throughout the whole Community.

Mr. Denham: The Government will have no credibility in their discussions with their European partners if they continue to promote the destruction of the environment through measures such as the M3 motorway through Twyford Down. Are there no limits on how far the Government will sink in the promotion of environmental destruction, including the hiring of a private detective agency, Bray's detective agency of Southampton, to photograph peaceful protesters at Twyford Down? Does the Minister have any limits as to how far the Government will go in destroying the environment and suspending the basic civil liberties of Her Majesty's subjects?

Mr. Maclean: I regret that the hon. Gentleman takes a tone which drags Britain down unfairly. He should concentrate on this country's record of compliance with environmental legislation in the past few years. Since the United Kingdom joined the Community, the European Court of Justice has not delivered one adverse judgment against it on environmental matters. If the hon. Gentleman compares the records of all countries in the Community he will find that 11 judgments have been made against Italy, 10 against Belgium, seven against Germany, five against France, three against the Netherlands, one each against Denmark, Greece, Spain and Luxembourg, and none against Britain. Why does the hon. Gentleman not speak for Britain for a change?

Sir Anthony Durant: Will my right hon. Friend congratulate the National Rivers Authority on its wonderful job of cleaning up the River Thames? The River Thames is now a beautiful river—[Interruption.] particularly in the Reading area. Will he continue to support the actions of the National Rivers Authority?

Mr. Maclean: I am delighted to support the excellent work that the NRA has carried out in recent years with a continually increasing budget. Last night I was delighted to attend a joint venture with the Countryside Commission which was sponsored by the Financial Times. With considerable funding from my Department, and with the help of the NRA, the Countryside Commission is taking forward a national trail along the side of the Thames. We shall have a national trail of about 200 miles alongside this excellent river. I look forward to walking part of that trail, probably near Reading.

Mr. John D. Taylor: Does the Minister agree that some environmental policies within the United Kingdom have

an impact on the rest of the European Community while others have no impact? In connection with the latter, does he agree that the European Community should keep its nose out?

Mr. Maclean: Of course, some policies need to be implemented at a European or international level. That is essential for many environmental policies. However, national Governments can perfectly adequately implement other policies. The House ought to be aware that the European Council of Ministers has decided that work needs to be carried forward in conjunction with the Commission on the principle of subsidiarity. We are working on the general plans and criteria for applying the principle. It would be wrong to assume that the environment has been singled out for special treatment. It has not. However, there is no reason why certain environmental matters should not be covered by the principle of subsidiarity.

Mr. Robert B. Jones: I welcome the Chester conference, which was an important initiative. Is not one of the keys to implementation on a European scale the establishment of the European Environment Agency? Is it not hypocritical of the French to lecture us on being uncommunautaire while they are using every power at their disposal to block a Community decision on the location of that important establishment, which should of course be in Britain?

Mr. Maclean: Of course, it is terribly important that we get the European Environment Agency up and running. At the last meeting of the Council of Ministers, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State made strenuous efforts to make progress on the matter. It is unfortunate that some member states could not agree to come to a conclusion on the matter. They considered that other agencies should be included in the package and that agreement could not be reached solely on an environment agency. We shall consider the matter again at our next Council meeting in December, but the British Government are determined that the agency should be up and running as soon as possible in Europe. It is essential if we are to achieve the proper environmental protection and enforcement that we want throughout the Community.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Has the Government's apparent problem with ratifying treaties spread to the Department of the Environment? At the Rio summit in June, our Government were keen that everyone should sign the climate change treaty. Indeed, the Government persuaded reluctant countries such as the United States to do so. The United States has now ratified the treaty. Denmark is about to ratify it. The Department of the Environment says that the treaty will be ratified by the end of the year, but the Treasury says that we shall have to wait for all 150 countries to do so ahead of us. What is the truth? Shall we be last yet again?

Mr. Maclean: That is nonsense. The hon. Gentleman has been Liberal Democrat environment spokesman for some time and he should know better. We made it crystal clear that we considered the ratification of the climate change and biodiversity conventions to be important. We have always made it clear that we hope and intend to complete our ratification by the end of next year. [HON. MEMBERS: "This year."] Important work needs to be carried out in the European Community to achieve


agreement on a host of measures to make ratification mean something. It is easy to ratify a treaty, but if we do not have all the clauses in place to ensure that we cut our carbon dioxide emissions, there is no point in ratification. We shall ratify the convention on time and take the necessary steps to ensure that we comply with it.

Mrs. Gorman: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important to make haste slowly on implementation of some of the conditions because scientific evidence is constantly emerging which introduces a new aspect on some of this stuff, and especially on carbon dioxide emissions? Many scientists now say that carbon dioxide is a beneficial gas and that the amount in the atmosphere is not a danger and does not cause global warming.

Mr. Maclean: Far be it from me to disagree with my hon. Friend on too many occasions, but I do not accept that we should go very slowly on this. We should proceed sensibly. There is a clear body of scientific evidence that increased carbon dioxide emissions are damaging the atmosphere and the planet on which we live. That is unacceptable. We believe in the precautionary principle. I intend to make progress as quickly as is practicable in the circumstances, and we shall continue to do so.

Mr. Chris Smith: The Minister of State appears to take too lightly Britain's responsibilities to fulfil the commitments that we made both to the European Community and at Rio. Chief among the Rio commitments was the drawing up of a national sustainability plan. Will the Minister tell us whether he stands by that commitment? Will the plan be a forward-looking document, setting out objectives and targets? If so, when will it appear, and how will he go about drawing it up?

Mr. Maclean: First, I am delighted formally to welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new position—although I have already welcomed him in another debate a couple of weeks ago. I tell him—and I may chastise him slightly, as I did last time—that he ought to pay more attention to what we have been doing. We intend to produce our own report to the Sustainable Development Commission. Even now, we are working on its design and we shall consult a range of organisations on what they believe should go into the plan. We shall publish the consultation document shortly, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be one of those who respond to it. We want as many ideas as possible—even, no doubt, impractical ones—about what should go into the report. We are working to ensure that in the United Nations the Sustainable Development Commission is as high powered and efficient as possible.

Renovation Grants

Mr. Harvey: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will review the funding arrangements and operating regulations of the mandatory renovation grants system.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tony Baldry): We continue to keep the grant system under review.

Mr. Harvey: Does the Minister accept that the new £50,000 limit which will apply next year will affect only a small number of grants, leaving local authorities such as North Devon having to cough up so much that they will

not be able to meet their other housing responsibilities? Will the Minister clamp down on professional grant-getters who have more than one house, and will he make the awards discretionary after local authorities have met their targets and budgets?

Mr. Baldry: North Devon council was awarded £835,000 this year towards renovation grant spending. We also have a reserve of supplementary credit approvals to help authorities such as North Devon cope with the pressures. I hope to announce the extra allocations shortly.

Sir Michael Neubert: If, as I hope, the Chancellor of the Exchequer decides tomorrow to relax the 25 per cent. limit on local councils' use of receipts from council house sales, may I even at this 11th hour urge that consideration be given to predicating that money for the renovation and refurbishment of property already in council ownership, such as houses, schools and other buildings? That would both provide a boost to the local construction industry and maintain the value of public assets.

Mr. Baldry: My hon. Friend makes his point well, and it has been noted.

Mr. George Howarth: Does the Minister accept that the means testing applied to renovation grants acts as a disincentive, especially for people on low incomes, to carry out much-needed improvements? Does he also accept that relaxing the regulations and allowing people living in appalling conditions to have a full grant to carry out improvements would be a quick way of boosting the construction industry?

Mr. Baldry: The means testing is straightforward. It is designed to ensure that the money goes to those in the greatest need, thus ensuring that the money available is put to the best possible use. I find it difficult to believe that the hon. Gentleman does not understand that.

Mr. Spring: My hon. Friend will agree that the provision of good local services does not necessarily involve high public expenditure. Will he join me and my constituents in congratulating St. Edmundsbury borough council on working so hard to achieve debt-free status?

Mr. Baldry: I am sure that every local authority must seek to spend its resources properly and effectively. The way in which authorities use their money to help with private sector renewal is as important as their other responsibilities.

Mr. Pike: The Minister gave a cautious first answer to the question. Do the Government intend to carry on with the mandatory grant system for dealing with unfit housing? If so, will the Minister guarantee that local authorities will have the full measure of Government support and the financial commitment, including the 25 per cent. currently required from their own resources, which is necessary to enable them to meet the need without having to abandon the rest of their capital programme?

Mr. Baldry: The hon. Gentleman knows that we keep the system continually under review. We had a review earlier this year, as a consequence of which we have now managed to target resources even better at those who have the greatest need. We are also giving extra help to those just above income support levels. We maintain a close


review of the system. We see the need to maintain a good renewal of private sector stock and we shall continue to carry forward that policy.

Opencast Mining

Mr. Barry Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on opencast mining.

Mr. Howard: The Under-Secretary of State—my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry)—announced on 15 July the Government's intention to review the current planning guidelines on opencast coal which are contained in minerals planning guidance note 3. That review is under way and revised guidance will be published for consultation in due course.

Mr. Jones: Why should the Government propose 80 million tonnes per annum of opencast coal mining while proposing the closure of 31 deep mines, with the loss of 100,000 jobs? Why should my constituency, especially the township of Buckley, have fairly extensive opencast mining while it is proposed that the Point of Ayr colliery, 10 miles away, will be closed? I warn the right hon. and learned Gentleman that his Government should not plan to destroy more trees, more hedges and more meadows when he could keep open many of our mines and prevent the march towards mass unemployment in the colliery areas.

Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that most aspects of his question are matters for my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade. The land use planning aspects of opencast mining are taken into account before permission is given. As I said in my original answer, we are reviewing the planning guidelines.

Mrs. Currie: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that opencast mining in my constituency is of tremendous benefit, not only because we can thereby obtain coal at one quarter of the cost of deep-mined coal—which makes it the cheapest mineral available to us in the world—but because we can thereby clear hundreds of acres of derelict land and return it to a use and a purpose that will generate more jobs in future than the pits underneath the ground have ever done?

Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is entirely right in drawing attention to the environmental advantages that can frequently follow opencast mining. She makes an important point.

Mr. Skinner: Can we be assured from what the Secretary of State said about redrawing minerals planning guidance note 3 that fewer opencast applications will be accepted? Is the Secretary of State aware that the amount of opencast coal has gone up to about 18·5 million tonnes, which is equivalent to the production of 17 to 18 pits? That equates to about 17,000 to 18,000 miners. If the review of the pits is to mean anything, surely opencast production must be severely reduced.

Mr. Howard: I understand the hon. Gentleman's points. My hon. Friend the Minister for Energy has already made it clear that opencast mining is on a downward trend. I cannot anticipate the results of our

revision of planning policy guidance. We shall take all the land use aspects of opencast mining carefully into account in the review that is under way.

Dr. Spink: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that Canvey island in my constituency is threatened with coal dust from the transshipment of coal from the proposed jetty? In such a sensitive environment as Canvey island, where we already have problems with oil, with gas storage and with being below sea level, that additional environmental hazard is unacceptable.

Mr. Howard: I am sure that my hon. Friend and many of his constituents have drawn that point to the attention of the local authority which has powers to deal with such matters. I am sure that he will want to pursue it with the local authority.

Ms. Short: Does the Secretary of State agree with the Council for the Protection of Rural England that opencast mining is one of the most environmentally destructive processes carried out in the United Kingdom? Is he aware that, contrary to the impression that he has just given to the House, there has been a doubling of opencast mining in Britain since 1979 and that there are currently many applications from British Coal and from private companies? Will he give an undertaking that the review of planning law will produce more stringent conditions so that opencast mining is not allowed unless it is beneficial to the local community and is not environmentally destructive and unless the site will be restored to a decent condition? If that is not achieved, we will see the loss of our coal industry, the despoliation of our economy and the destruction of our countryside.

Mr. Howard: I congratulate the hon. Lady on her new responsibilities. I hope that they prove rather more long lasting than her previous responsibilities on the Opposition Front Bench.
As for the hon. Lady's three questions, the future course of opencast mining is on a downward trend, as my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy has made clear. The hon. Lady is right to assert that in many cases opencast mining has environmental disadvantages. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) pointed out a moment ago, in many cases it can have environmental advantages. The land use aspects are carefully taken into account in the planning process and the hon. Lady will understand that I cannot anticipate this afternoon the outcome of our review of the planning policy guidance note.

Council Housing (Competitive Tendering)

Mr. Evennett: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how he proposes to extend compulsory competitive tendering to the management of council housing.

The Minister for Housing and Planning (Sir George Young): The Government's proposals for extending compulsory competitive tendering to housing management were set out in the consultation paper "Competing for Quality in Housing".

Mr. Evennett: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his reply. Does he agree that many tenants in London cannot wait to be free of local authority control, particularly in


areas where there are Labour local authorities whose management of council housing has been so poor? Will my hon. Friend confirm that he will act to prevent local authorities avoiding putting housing management out to tender? Many Conservative Members are very concerned about that issue.

Sir George Young: Our view is that local authority tenants are entitled to the best possible service within the available resources. We do not believe that that is happening at the moment. We believe that our proposals for CCT for housing management will enhance and improve the standard of service that many tenants receive and that they have the most to gain from our proposals.

Mr. Raynsford: Will the Minister confirm that, in preparation for the consultation paper to which he referred, the consultants hired by his Department talked to approximately 30 local authorities and 30 private contractors but did not talk to a single tenant or tenants' organisation? Having failed entirely to consult tenants before producing his proposals, will he confirm that the tenants have reacted by rejecting them decisively? Will he guarantee the House that, before taking any further action, he will listen to and heed the views of council tenants?

Sir George Young: The House should know that more than 100 tenants' organisations responded to the consultation document. It is not the case that their views have been overlooked. Many of them look forward to higher standards of management on their estates. For the first time, tenants will have a statutory right to take over the management of their estates. Many of them cannot wait to take over management of their estates from their local authorities.

Mr. Patrick Thompson: Will my hon. Friend reassure the very large number of council tenants in my constituency of Norwich, North, many of whom face serious housing difficulties, that the proposals really are to their advantage? If that is the case, will he condemn those members of the Labour party in Norwich who are issuing leaflets and trying to scare people—as is their usual practice?

Sir George Young: I am disturbed to hear that my hon. Friend's local authority is raising needless anxiety among tenants. We have already invited seven local authorities to pilot the arrangements for us in advance of the legislation. One of the local authorities is Labour controlled. There is considerable enthusiasm among many local authorities to use the new facilities to drive up the standards that they are receiving at present from their work forces. We have tried that in other local authority areas and have secured welcome improvements in quality and welcome reductions in costs. We see no reason why local authority tenants should not benefit from this extension of a principle which is already well established.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Will the boon that has been suggested for council tenants be extended to tenants of housing associations or quangos, such as the Northern Ireland Housing Executive?

Sir George Young: My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will have heard or will quite soon hear that question. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will have an answer very soon.

Home Ownership (Flats)

Mr. Congdon: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has for improving opportunities for home ownership for those living in flats.

Sir George Young: The Housing and Urban Development Bill will give most long leaseholders in flats either the right to purchase collectively the freehold of their blocks or the right to an extended lease. It will also enable secure tenants to buy their homes on rent-to-mortgage terms.

Mr. Congdon: I welcome the measures on leasehold enfranchisement and the rent-to-mortgage scheme, but will my hon. Friend consider further measures to encourage local authorities that have been very reluctant to do so to sell more flats?

Sir George Young: The Government are anxious to continue to diversify tenure on local authority estates, particularly local authority flats. The rent-to-mortgage scheme, which comes under the Bill to which I referred, will offer a new low-risk route into home ownership with a minimum increase in outgoings. That will be attractive to many people who live in flats. As interest rates come down, the right-to-buy option becomes equally attractive. I hope that we shall be able to make further progress in diversifying tenure on local authority estates.

Council Tax

Mr. Leighton: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what the total cost will be of transitional relief for the operation of the first year of the council tax in 1993–94.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Robin Squire): It is too early to say. We shall be announcing our proposals for next year's revenue support grant settlement shortly, including details of the proposals for transitional relief.

Mr. Leighton: Bearing in mind the fact that the Secretary of State for the Environment was the Minister who introduced the poll tax, will the introduction of the council tax be as big as fiasco as that or a bigger one?

Mr. Squire: The House might determine that that was not a question which gained its full impact on delivery. The council tax will be a fair tax. Apart from the banding, which has been well stressed, many people will receive deserved discounts. Above all else, there will be rebates of up to 100 per cent. for those who are in most need. The Government are certain that the council tax will be welcomed by most people as an improvement.

Mr. Nigel Evans: Does my hon. Friend agree with me, as someone who was perhaps one of the biggest poll tax losers in this country, with the Ribble Valley by-election—which certainly cost me the seat at the time—that the vast majority of people in my constituency would welcome the fact that the poll tax is being abolished and that the council tax will take its place? We shall get greater discounts for people on low incomes, students will have 100 per cent. rebates and people living alone will benefit because, for the first time ever with a household tax, they will gain with a 25 per cent. discount.

Mr. Squire: My hon. Friend makes his points admirably and I fully endorse them.

Mr. Vaz: Is it not the case that, whatever transitional relief the Secretary of State has been able to get out of the Treasury, it will not cover up the basic and profound unfairness of the council tax? Will the Minister confirm that millions on below-average incomes will not be eligible for any council tax benefit? They will be forced to pay a proportionately much greater amount of their income than the best-off, whose tax has been capped at twice the average. Does the Minister agree that, rather than the council tax becoming a fiasco, it will be a shambles? What is he prepared to do about that?

Mr. Squire: May I begin by welcoming the hon. Gentleman to the Front Bench and, as is the usual custom, wishing him a long sojourn there. On his central question, I completely reject his charges. The ability of all those on income support to receive 100 per cent. rebate is an important part of the new system. It is buttressed, as I said in answer to the hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton), by a rebate system that will reach and assist many people, including those who are less well off.

Bed-and-breakfast Accommodation

Mr. Mullin: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to reduce the number of families in bed-and-breakfast accommodation.

Sir George Young: There has been a reduction of 17 per cent. over the latest 12-month period for which figures are available.

Mr. Mullin: Will the Minister confirm that it costs twice as much to keep a family in bed-and-breakfast accommodation as it does to pay, on average, the cost of a loan for building a new house? Is that not madness? Will the Minister introduce a scheme to encourage building societies to lease homes to local authorities for the accommodation of homeless people? If that is not practicable, why not build more public housing?

Sir George Young: The numbers in bed-and-breakfast accommodation are coming down because there is greater use of private sector leasing along the lines that the hon. Gentleman suggested. Everyone agrees that bed and breakfast is a wholly inappropriate form of accommodation for families. We have been working out much better alternatives which are also cheaper.

Mr. Paice: Is not one way of dealing with the problem to allow housing associations to build many more homes? In that context, is my hon. Friend aware that East Cambridgeshire district council in my constituency, having achieved debt-free status beforehand, transferred its housing stock to a housing association and is now in the position of being able to make annual massive contributions to that association to build new homes?

Sir George Young: I pay tribute to the enlightened view of my hon. Friend's local authority. There are many gains from the policy that he described, not least for those who live in the new homes that are funded out of capital receipts. Housing associations have a role to play in tackling the problem. Completions have gone up from 27,000 two years ago to 53,000 next year, on current plans.

Mr. Clelland: We all await with bated breath the Chancellor's autumn statement on Thursday. Notwithstanding that, can the Minister tell us what representations he or the Secretary of State have made to the Chancellor with a view to allowing local authorities to use capital receipts from council house sales to build, renew or lease properties, to put an end to the appalling housing record of the Government over the past 13 years?

Sir George Young: Certainly not.

Mr. Hendry: Will my hon. Friend, when looking at the problems of homelessness, consider what can be done to bring into use the tens of millions of square feet of empty office space whose owners and developers would be happy to see it used on a short-term basis to house homeless people or students? That could make a significant contribution towards tackling the problem.

Sir George Young: I very much welcome using the lateral thinking in which my hon. Friend engaged to see whether one could convert empty office space, particularly in London, into accommodation which is clearly needed. Studies are going on in which my Department is very interested. Where it is feasible, practicable and possible, I shall do what I can to support such a transition.

Mr. Battle: Of course, it is welcome that the numbers of families in bed-and-breakfast accommodation are starting to come down, but is not the reason the fact that there is now the highest ever number of families in temporary accommodation? Do not some 63,000 families want to know how temporary is temporary? Rather than further cut local authority housing, change pledges to housing associations and cut their budgets, is it not time for the Government to let local authorities make use of the £5 billion of capital receipts to provide desperately needed housing to rent and at the same time provide work for the severely depressed construction industry?

Sir George Young: The figures for acceptances on the homeless side have started to fall, so it is not the case that there is an inexorable increase in the families being accepted by local authorities. Total acceptances in London in the current year were 40,700—that is a reduction. On the capital receipts point which the hon. Gentleman mentioned, that is a debate which I have had many times. He well knows that if one wants to make the best use of capital receipts, one has to examine the incidence of where they arise and where the need is greatest. One cannot spend the same capital receipts twice.

Mr. Bowis: Does my hon. Friend agree that if the Labour boroughs of London were to bring back into use the empty properties that they own and properties that are currently squatted, tomorrow there would be no one in bed-and-breakfast accommodation in London?

Sir George Young: My hon. Friend is right. For the last date for which we have figures, there were 74,200 voids in local authority ownership. That is more than the number in bed and breakfast, so my hon. Friend is right.

Council Tax

Mr. Salmond: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his Department's most recent estimate of the average level of council tax per household; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Howard: We have made no predictions of the level of council taxes and have no intention of doing so. The council tax is a local tax and bills will be set locally.

Mr. Salmond: Does that change of approach follow the remarkable success of the forecasting team at the Secretary of State's Department when estimating the poll tax? Can the Secretary of State explain why all the speculation about the introduction of the council tax has centred on how much money he might get out of the Treasury to cushion the blow of the incidence of the tax in the south of England? Does no one else need cushioning? Has the Secretary of State noticed that every potential candidate for Tory leadership is colliding with a political disaster? Is the Secretary of State about to collide with his?

Mr. Howard: I am thoroughly at a loss to know where to begin to deal with the remarkable foolishness contained in the hon. Gentleman's questions. I am confident that the council tax will be seen to be a fair replacement for the community charge, and I hope that the Opposition Front Bench will heed the urgings of the labour leaders of the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, who told the leader of the Opposition to soft-pedal his opposition to the council tax so that we could introduce it, to put the arguments of the past behind us and to ensure that we work together. I invite Opposition Members to co-operate with us to ensure the smooth introduction of the council tax next spring.

Mr. John Marshall: Will my right hon. and learned Friend assure the House that he will seek to keep down the level of the council tax, by making widespread use of his capping powers to restrict the high-spending proclivities of Labour-controlled local authorities?

Mr. Howard: I can certainly give my hon. Friend the assurance that capping powers will be available, will be used and will play an important part in the restraint of public spending, which is so crucial to the success of national economic policies.

Mr. Straw: Just now, the Secretary of State said that he was not making predictions about the level of the council tax. He will recall that yesterday, at the annual conference of the Association of County Councils, he went further and said:
The Government has never made any predictions of the level of the council tax.
How can those two statements be true, when I have here 28 pages of tables of predictions for the council tax, issued by his right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) when he was Secretary of State for the Environment in April 1991? The calculations show, district by district and band by band, what the Tory party pretended to be the level of the tax in a run-up to the election, and give an average figure of £400. Is it not the truth that those figures were entirely bogus and an effort to defraud the electorate in the run-up to the election? The reason that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is trying to pretend that no predictions were made is that he will be profoundly embarrassed when the figures come out this week or next.

Mr. Howard: No predictions were made. I am astonished at the hon. Gentleman's incomprehension. He knows full well that the caveats attached to those figures were clearly spelt out at the time and that they never were

forecasts. If the hon. Gentleman cannot do better than that cheap misrepresentation when dealing with the problem, he ought to start again.

Housing Associations

Mr. Moate: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about progress in transferring local authority housing stock into housing associations.

Sir George Young: Since 1988, 18 local authorities have transferred the ownership of their housing stock to housing associations with the agreement of their tenants. Those completed transfers have taken more than 94,000 tenanted houses and flats out of local authority ownership; they have generated capital receipts of more than £820 million and have brought more than £1·2 billion of private funds into social housing.

Mr. Moate: Is my hon. Friend aware that Swale borough council in my constituency was one of the pioneers in transferring its total housing stock of more than 7,000 houses to housing associations? Is he aware also that that policy has been a tremendous success, has all-party support, that the council is debt free and that there is an excellent record of tenant relations? What is my hon. Friend doing to trumpet the success of that policy, so that councils throughout the land break up, as rapidly as possible, the bureaucratic empires that so many have sought to defend?

Sir George Young: My hon. Friend is right. It so happens that only this morning I was reading Swale housing association's business plan. I was interested to see that it was ahead of its targets, that it had honoured its commitments to its tenants and that its performance had improved. The Government remain committed to a continuing programme of large-scale voluntary transfers. I hope that the advertisement that my hon. Friend just made on behalf of that programme will be picked up by many councillors and tenants throughout the country so that they, too, can avail themselves of the advantages that he mentioned.

Mr. Jim Marshall: The Minister will be aware that, on a number of occasions, the tenants of the Boot houses on the Saffron Lane estate in my constituency have always expressed opposition to development by housing associations. What progress is being made in providing additional funds to ensure that those properties can be redeveloped?

Sir George Young: Speaking from memory, I think that the tenants were offered an option for taking forward development of that estate and they rejected it because they were not entirely happy with some aspects. I hope that the discussions continue between the tenants and the local authority. If they can come up with an agreed solution, I shall see whether my Department has a role to play in bringing forward a satisfactory long-term solution for that estate, the background of which I am familiar with.

Sir Anthony Durant: Is my hon. Friend aware that Newbury district council, which is part of my constituency, has gone into that matter on a big scale and has been highly successful? Regrettably, Reading borough


council scared tenants in the area against voting for it by putting out an iniquitous leaflet at the last general election, saying that if tenants voted Conservative, their houses would be stolen.

Sir George Young: In a recent visit to my hon. Friend's constituency, that leaflet was drawn to my attention. The Labour councillors with whom I was speaking had the grace to admit that they had gone slightly over the top in their predictions of what might happen in the event of a Conservative victory. There was a Conservative victory and none of the awful things that they said would happen has happened. I hope that my hon. Friend will pursue in his local newspaper the points that he just made and explain that tenants should not always believe what they are told by Labour councillors in Reading.

Hazardous Waste

Mr. Roy Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent discussions he has had with local authorities concerning future policy on the disposal of hazardous waste.

Mr. Maclean: I have had no recent discussions with local authorities on hazardous waste policy issues, but my officials have regular meetings with representatives of the local authority associations on waste issues.

Mr. Hughes: Will the Minister confirm that the EC directive prohibiting the importation of hazardous waste will not come into operation until May 1994 at the earliest? What is to happen in the meantime? Will he ensure that local authorities are not overruled when they refuse to grant permission for those waste disposal plants? Does he appreciate that, in Newport at present, an appeal is outstanding from the American concern, Browning Ferris? It is generally recognised locally that Newport needs Browning Ferris like it needs a hole in the head.

Mr. Maclean: I must congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on his remarkable success at the last Council of Ministers meeting. For many months, we had not reached agreement and, at the first meeting that he chaired, he managed to get the waste shipments regulation agreed. We shall have the benefit of that regulation when it comes into force in 1994. We were keen to get it because

we had no effective means of cutting off the importation of overseas hazardous waste without that international agreement.
Planning matters must be decided according to planning rules and it would be wrong to try to manipulate the planning system to deal with importation and exportation of waste. We now have the new directive and we want to ensure that we can bring forward our national self-sufficiency plans so that we can implement them when the directive takes effect. In that way, we shall begin to turn off the taps on the importation of waste from developed countries that should deal with it themselves.

National Rivers Authority (Funding)

Mr. Clifton-Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much funding the National Rivers Authority received in 1990–91 and 1991–92.

Mr. Maclean: The National Rivers Authority's grant in aid from my Department was £103·9 million in 1990–91 and £83·85 million in 1991–92 towards total expenditure on grant-aided functions of £168 million in the first year and £197 million in the second.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: Those figures mean that the administrative costs of the National Rivers Authority will progressively have to be borne by agricultural and industrial users. That will impact severely on fish farmers, who are large upstream and downstream volume users of water. I believe that my hon. Friend the Minister had a meeting with the British Trout Association yesterday. Will he give a resume of the discussions and state whether any concessions were made?

Mr. Maclean: I must point out that the NRA is receiving substantial grant in aid from my Department, but I am concerned about the proposed NRA charges as they impact on trout farmers and met the British Trout Association yesterday. I think that we would all agree that although all those who take water from rivers must pay for it, there should be an equitable regime. I see no environmental benefit in unfairly putting 400 small trout farmers out of business. I have undertaken to look again at the NRA's proposed charges to see whether we can devise an equitable regime for all involved, including trout farmers.

Political Talks (Northern Ireland)

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Sir Patrick Mayhew): With permission, I should like to make a statement about the political talks concerning Northern Ireland. The talks were built on those which were held last year. Like them, they took as ground rules my predecessor's statement to the House on 26 March 1991.
The first strand of the new talks began in Belfast under my predecessor's chairmanship on 9 March this year, and they resumed on 29 April under my chairmanship, to consider political arrangements within Northern Ireland itself. By the beginning of July I thought that it was appropriate to propose that the other two strands be launched. Accordingly, on 6 July, the second strand, involving both the Irish and British Governments and concerning relationships in the whole island of Ireland, was begun. We met initially in London, and subsequently in Belfast and Dublin. That strand has taken place under the distinguished chairmanship of Sir Ninian Stephen. To him, and to the Australian Government who permitted him to be available, we all owe an enormous amount of gratitude, particularly since in the latter stages he readily accepted an invitation to help us in our proceedings across all three strands.
On 28 July in Dublin the two Governments held the opening meeting of the third strand concerning future relationships between them.
Throughout the talks I have received wise and indefatigable support from the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley). In particular, he chaired a most fruitful series of strand 1 committee sessions, and has often deputised for me in the other strands.
The present talks, like those last year, were stipulated to be held during a specified gap between meetings of the Anglo-Irish intergovernmental conference, provided for under the Anglo-Irish Agreement. Before the talks resumed after our own general election, the two Governments announced that the next meeting of the intergovernmental conference would not be before the end of July. Since then the gap has been twice extended. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach announced on 25 September, in a final extension, that the next meeting of the conference would be held on 16 November. More than six months have accordingly been available for these talks.
We have not yet succeeded in the ambitious task of securing an overall settlement, that is to say,
a new beginning for relationships within Northern Ireland, within the island of Ireland, and between the peoples of these islands.
Since the talks were held on the basis that
nothing will be finally agreed in any strand until everything is agreed in the talks as a whole and that confidentiality will be maintained",
the question of a partial settlement did not arise. All the same, the talks have seen substantive and detailed engagement on issues of the first importance.
In strand 1 the Northern Ireland parties, together with the British Government, identified common themes and principles which should underlie any new political institutions in Northern Ireland, and examined possible structures which might reflect these.
In strand 2, in which of course the Irish Government have also been a participant, delegations discussed fundamental aspects of relationships within the island of Ireland, and of the realities underlying them, including constitutional issues and questions of identity and allegiance. We examined the scope for enhanced co-operation within the island of Ireland, in the social, economic, and security fields, among others. We considered the nature of the structures which might best serve such co-operation.
In strand 3 the two Governments, as co-signatories of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, addressed, in liaison with the other participants, possible principles for a new and more broadly based agreement, and possible intergovernmental arrangements.
Much has been done to identify and enlarge the common ground, and to increase understanding and respect for the participants' respective positions. The process has involved hard work and commitment from all the participants. The talks participants have collectively reaffirmed their total abhorrence of, and unqualified opposition to, all forms of terrorism, from whatever source they may come. Nothing has taken place to alter my firm view that it was right to bring together the main constitutional parties in Northern Ireland and the two Governments to address, in a single process, a comprehensive agenda. It remains my judgment that, with good will and application, a comprehensive settlement can yet be secured. Those qualities are not lacking.
Yesterday the talks participants agreed and issued a statement, copies of which have been placed in the Library. In it they recognised that
while at this time there is no basis to agree a settlement, they have identified and discussed most, if not all, of the elements which would comprise an eventual settlement; they have developed a clear understanding of each other's positions; and established constructive dialogue on ways in which an accommodation might be reached on some of the key issues which divide them".
All recognised the great value of that dialogue. The two Governments expressed their view yesterday that further dialogue was both necessary and desirable. The four Northern Ireland parties agreed with that, and accordingly undertook to
enter into informal consultations with a view to seeking a way forward.
The House, although doubtless disappointed that we have not been able to achieve fuller agreement, will welcome that commitment. The objectives of the talks process remain valid and achievable. That is the expressed opinion of the independent chairman, Sir Ninian Stephen, and it is my opinion. The objectives are realistic. We have a duty therefore to build on what has been begun, however slow that process has been, and not to give up. We have a duty not to lose patience with what is a deeply historic problem; not to give way to exasperation; and not to recriminate.
Her Majesty's Government for their part, therefore, will steadily persevere. We shall maintain our line of approach to these objectives and continue also our commitment to resolute, fair and just government in Northern Ireland. Not only the people of Northern Ireland but the people of the rest of these islands—let us not forget them—deserve that of us.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: I thank the Secretary of State for his fairly full and comprehensive statement and take this opportunity to join


him and associate the Opposition in thanking Sir Ninian Stephen for his work. We share what must be his regret that it has not been possible to reach heads of agreement.
The Labour party welcomes the progress that has been made, and the understanding reached as a result of the talks process. For the first time, an agenda was reached that recognised the three primary relationships upon which any future settlement must be based in Ireland. The fact that this agenda was acceded to by all the parties has to be seen as a major breakthrough which should he built upon. The Labour party welcomes the undertakings given by the parties to maintain bilateral talks and discussions to maintain the dialogue.
In November 1990, the Secretary of State's predecessor declared:
The British Government has no selfish strategic or economic interest in Northern Ireland.
May we assume that this is still the attitude of Her Majesty's Government?
While it would have been useful, after nearly two years of talks, for the Government to have published a paper outlining the current position, as the four main constitutional parties have undertaken to continue negotiating, and some have already published their latest positions, it is probably better for the Government to hold back so as not to prejudice any future possible agreement. However, there will come a time when such a document will be necessary. In any event, if the Irish parties can reach an agreement amongst themselves, no British Government will seek to undermine it.
Some voices will call on the Secretary of State to impose a solution. I hope that he will resist such blandishments. Will he give an undertaking that there will be no alteration in the status quo in Northern Ireland or in the House while the dialogue is taking place, without the agreement of all the parties? The basic problem throughout the process of the talks has been that, although the parties have used the same language in their attitude to the Anglo-Irish Agreement, they have meant entirely different things. This is a contradiction which must still be addressed.
While the talks are in abeyance, the Anglo-Irish Agreement remains in force, and indeed it should be widened and deepened. If it becomes apparent that there is little chance of the parties securing agreement, then we must move further towards a greater sharing of the responsibility between the two Governments in the affairs of Northern Ireland.

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his endorsement of what I said about Sir Ninian Stephen. I am grateful also for his welcome to the agreement by all the participants that these talks should continue the process of consultation. He asked whether the British Government stood by the assertion, made by my predecessor, that we have
no selfish economic or strategic interest
in the present constitutional position of Northern Ireland. That is certainly the case. There is no qualification to that, nor to the undertaking that my predecessor gave on 26 March 1991 that so long as it remains the wish of most of those living in Northern Ireland that Northern Ireland should remain part of the United Kingdom, so it shall. There will be no change of status, save if there is a change in the wish of the majority.
I also welcome what the hon. Gentleman said about possible publication at this stage of an account of these negotiations. It was wise of him to recognise that, in the

light of the parties' willingness and wish to continue to consult, it might be damaging if an account of who said what and when were published, particularly in the light of the understanding that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.
There is no question of an imposed solution. The British Government are doing all in their power to seek a settlement of this deeply rooted historic problem that is arrived at by agreement with all those who are concerned with it.
The hon. Gentleman asked for an undertaking that there would be no alteration of the status quo in Northern Ireland while the dialogue is continuing. I give him that undertaking without any qualification.
It remains the case, as is evidenced by the fact that the intergovernmental conference is to take place next Monday 16 November, that the Anglo-Irish Agreement remains in force.

Mr. Andrew Hunter: I deeply regret that the process has not resulted in positive conclusions, but will my right hon. and learned Friend contemplate that the chances of future agreements might be increased if the Irish Government showed more flexibility with regard to articles 2 and 3? I also draw my right hon. and learned Friend's attention to the public statements of the leader of the Alliance party, who expressed the belief that greater flexibility on the part of the Social Democratic and Labour party would greatly help future talks.

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I share my hon. Friend's regret that we have not achieved a greater degree of convergence—of agreement. It would be unwise of me to be drawn into—

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Convergence—it is a joke.

Sir Patrick Mayhew: It is not one that the hon. Gentleman understands.
A discussion of individual ingredients in the conversations that have taken place throughout the process during the past six months. It is fairly well known among the parties where the sticking points have been and where there has been what has amounted to quite a wide area of agreement. I do not wish to be drawn today into commenting on what one party may have said about another or anything of that kind. Recrimination will not be helpful to us, but a welcome to the parties' agreement to continue consultation will usefully come out of the House.

Mr. James Molyneaux: I join in paying tribute to Sir Ninian Stephen, as we did at Stormont yesterday, and, on behalf of my party, I express our appreciation and thanks to the Secretary of State, his predecessor and the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley), who, as the Secretary of State said, chaired one of the most vital strands, strand 1, at which there was considerable agreement and progress.
As the Secretary of State has said, the climate definitely has improved. I am sure that he did not wish to place undue emphasis on that little phrase that he used, perhaps accidentally implying that progress had not been made on a beginning for new relationships within Northern Ireland, because we have moved forward to some extent.
In view of that, will the Secretary of State facilitate the Northern Ireland parties in further developing the degree of co-operation that they have shown so often in the past on, for example, the economy and social matters, and a whole host of issues of vital importance to the people of Northern Ireland, and do that around the table in a way which, apparently, the other party leaders in the House representing constituencies in Great Britain seem to find abhorrent?
Has the Secretary of State taken note of the advice given by the Opposition spokesman that the Secretary of State should not seek to impose a solution; but on behalf of the Labour party the hon. Gentleman has made it clear that he would impose a solution without regard to the wishes of anybody?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I am grateful for what the right hon. Gentleman has said about Sir Ninian Stephen, which I am sure will be much appreciated, and I am also grateful for what he said about the Government team and about my predecessor.
I entirely agree that the climate has definitely improved. Sitting round the table for six months has led to a marked increase in the understanding of the parties for the positions taken by others and a respect for them, and all of us who have taken part in that recognise it. It has been very marked.
Progress has been made towards a new beginning in relationships both north-south, within Northern Ireland, and east-west. Progress has been made; it is not enough. It has taken six months, but six months in the history of Ireland is but an evening gone. We shall come back to it.
The right hon. Gentleman asked if I would facilitate progress on specific subjects in round-table conversations between the Northern Ireland parties. The British Government are anxious to facilitate any convergence—any area of agreement—in Northern Ireland, but we do not wish to lose sight of our objective of progress towards a new beginning in the totality of relationships. That objective has occupied us over the past six months.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Let me associate myself with what has already been said about Sir Ninian Stephen and his colleague George Thompson, who has assisted him lately. I also echo what has been said about the present Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, his predecessor and his deputy, who made such a valuable contribution to the talks in the conference and at stage 1.
Will the Secretary of State bear in mind what was said by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara)—that the Anglo-Irish Agreement was imposed on the people of Northern Ireland? It comes ill from the hon. Gentleman to say that nothing should be imposed, and then to say that the Dublin Government should have more say in the affairs of Northern Ireland. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman also confirm that, if the southern Government had not asked for the conference, the talks could have continued in spite of the election? We needed to revert to stage 1, for there was still business to be done, but the southern Government had no place in that.
Will the Secretary of State also bear in mind that, although the other Government said that articles 2 and 3 were on the table, the Taoiseach kept repeating outside the

conference that there would be no change? Last weekend, the SDLP spokesman exhorted his supporters to stand firm. The House should face up to the fact that no progress can be made until the Irish Republic gives up its illegal, immoral and criminal claim to the territory of Northern Ireland.

Sir Patrick Mayhew: It is true that the Irish Government asked for a meeting of the intergovernmental conference, as it was quite entitled to do. The last conference met on 27 April; this one will bring the total to four this year. Normally, there are eight on average. Under the terms of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, the Irish Government were perfectly entitled to ask for such a conference, and I make no complaint about that. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister agreed with the Taoiseach that it should take place. I think that it had a beneficial effect, in that it brought us under the whip for the past couple of weeks. Good progress was made.
Articles 2 and 3 have featured in our discussions, as it was apparent that they would. I welcome the fact that they have been recognised by the Irish Government as being on the table for discussion, along with other constitutional matters. I shall not go into the business of what weight is to be put on which ingredient in the talks, because I do not think that that will help the process of carrying forward the consultations—which, I trust, will begin very soon. I shall merely say that all the participants have, in their various ways, put their backs into this business, and much progress has been made as a result. Many historical watersheds have been encountered, and have been left behind us as we have moved onwards.

Mr. John Hume: I join other hon. Members in expressing deep appreciation of Sir Ninian Stephen and Mr. George Thompson, who have put incredible effort, energy and dedication into the talks. On behalf of my party, let me also express appreciation of the effort put in by the Secretary of State and the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State—and by the Dublin Ministers, who came here on a regular basis during strand 2. Six months is a short time in the history of a problem like Ireland. As I said to Sir Ninian Stephen yesterday, the Irish problem existed before his country came into existence. Six months, therefore, is a short time. During that time, I believe that the discussions had very many areas of constructive dialogue and very many areas of agreement, as well as areas of disagreement, but that, in terms of the depth of the divisions in our society, is progress.
I look forward to building on that progress by maintaining contact with the other parties, by dialogue, because dialogue is the only road to the future, and also by working with the other parties on matters of common concern, such as the economy, in order to build up trust and to break down the distrust and prejudice that goes to the heart of our problem.
I ask the Secretary of State to agree that, in summing up the approach of my party to this dialogue, we said that the task which faced us was the accommodation of two sets of legitimate rights: the rights of the Unionist people to the full expression of their identity and way of life and the rights of the nationalist people to precisely the same —the accommodation of both, not the defeat of one by the other?
While that principle is self-evident, and while the Secretary of State can agree that everyone can accept the principle and the reality, when one translates the reality into institutional expression both identities transcend the confines of Northern Ireland. While the three Unionist parties seem to have no difficulty in transcending the confines in the direction of London for the expression of what they describe as their Britishness, they seem to find difficulty in moving in the other direction to allow the nationalist community to have an equal expression of their identity.
The Secretary of State knows that we regard that as the major area of disagreement, but we look forward to continuing to discuss that area of disagreement, with a view to coming to an ultimate agreement, because dialogue —no matter what anyone says, and there is no point in recriminations—is the only route to a lasting settlement of our deep-seated problem.

Madam Speaker: Before I call the Secretary of State to respond, may I remind the House that we are dealing with a statement? Therefore, hon. Members should be questioning that statement, not making their own comments. That is essential if we are to make progress within the parliamentary framework.

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I neglected to express my thanks to the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) for what he said as to both Sir Ninian Stephen and myself.
I am grateful for what the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) said at the beginning of his remarks, and I welcome the thrust of what he said. It is right that the parties have come to acknowledge that one of the principal issues is the question of accommodating differing identities and differing allegiances in Northern Ireland. It is one of the achievements of the process that there has been a widening understanding of a point that he has always regarded as of crucial importance.
Equally, the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that there has been a widening understanding of the position, anxieties and fundamental beliefs of the Unionist side in the process. All that is to the good. The question is not so much whether one acknowledges these differences but how one applies the principle of accommodating them in real, practical reality. That is the question for continuing consultation, based upon what we have built in the last few months. I welcome the hon. Gentleman's commitment to that further process.

Sir James Kilfedder: May I join in the expression of praise and thanks to Sir Ninian Stephen for his patience, tact and skill? He was a distinguished chairman of the talks.
Does not the Secretary of State's opinion, that the objective of the talks remains both valid and achievable, fully justify the Government's commitment to continue with the process of informal discussions? Perhaps he might widen the discussions to include all Northern Ireland's parliamentary parties. Does he realise that the overwhelming majority of the Ulster people, regardless of their religion or politics, and in particular the younger generation, are anxious that Ulster should shake off the shackles of fear, prejudice and hatred and make way for political progress?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he has said. I endorse his final remark,

but the people of Northern Ireland across the spectrum wish that the past no longer dominates the present and dictates the future. The hon. Gentleman has much more experience of democratic politics in Northern Ireland than I have. Walking about in the streets and going about my business in the Province has brought home to me time and time again that there is a demand from the people of Northern Ireland that we should leave the past behind us. People say, "There are legitimate grievances on each side, but we are fed up with having them recited. We are looking to the future." Of course, that is particularly true of the young. So I stand by what the hon. Gentleman said.
I look forward to the continuation of the discussions. they will need to continue with the same participants with which they were begun. I know that all the participants will benefit from informal advice from the hon. Gentleman, as I have unfailingly done.

Mr. David Alton: In recognising the common ground as well as the difficulties in Northern Ireland, the talks have been welcomed, and will be welcomed, by all parties and all hon. Members. All hon. Members wish the Secretary of State and others well in the future.
Does the Secretary of State accept that the democratic deficit in Northern Ireland will need to be addressed by people not only in Northern Ireland but throughout the islands? A way of extending the discussion would be, not a Hansard such as that suggested earlier, but the publication of a Green Paper setting out the various options that now lie before us. The publication of a Green Paper would enable people to have a proper discussion about the alternatives and the concessions which would have to be made by each of the participants.
Does the Secretary of State agree that he must move from the role of umpire to that of a protagonist and, perhaps, reach further to the ordinary people both north and south of the border in Ireland and put a series of propositions in a referendum in due course to all the people, above the heads of politicians?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I am grateful for what the hon. Gentleman said at the beginning of his comments. I agree with his comments about a democratic deficit.
Part of my purpose is to bring back to Northern Ireland democratically answerable government which is exercised by the people, elected from the population of Northern Ireland and answerable for final decisions to them. For far too long Northern Ireland has suffered the indignity of being ruled from this House on matters which would normally be within the jurisdiction of a borough or district council. But we must secure the abolition of the democratic deficit on a fair and workable basis. The abolition of that deficit must attract the suport of the community. That, in part, is what the discussions are about.
I would rather publish a Green Paper which sets out the ways in which the agreement, once reached, can be implemented; but for the reasons that I have given, there is not much to be gained by publishing a Green Paper before we reach agreement.

Mr. Tom King: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the announcement that he has made to the House today is disappointing to those of us who have a keen interest in and affection for Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland? However, we realise


that a great deal has been achieved and that the parties involved deserve credit for the discussions that have already taken place. I refuse to believe that the discussions have been a waste of time.
Will my right hon. and learned Friend accept that, although the election in the Republic imposes a certain interim period until a new Government are elected, the parties in this House can take advantage of the interim period to continue the informal discussions in the hope that an opportunity will present itself to carry forward an important development?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I agree with what my right hon. Friend said, and I thank him for his comments. There may be some advantage in the pause or intermission—whatever one may like to call it—that has now occurred in meetings of the intergovernmental conference. The interim period will give an opportunity for ordinary men and women in the street to make their opinions known and inform the political leaders in the Province and the north and south what people think and what they hope will be achieved. I believe that that will happen, and that it will be beneficial. I am grateful for what my right hon. Friend said about how much has been achieved, and I believe that he is right.

Mr. Ken Maginnis: In a normal, ideal situation one would agree with the Secretary of State that this is not the time for recriminations. None the less, does he not agree that one party at the table was beyond the normal courtesies in terms of making a substantial contribution—lacking good will, flexibility and, one might say, common sense? That party made not one solitary compromise during the whole period of the discussions.
In so far as that party is joined with Her Majesty's Government, through the Anglo-Irish Agreement, does that not prove the folly of conferring on a Government who lack responsibility the right to interfere in our affairs in Northern Ireland? Instead of listening to the contradictory gobbledegook which we have heard from the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), will the Secretary of State consult elected Northern Ireland Members? In terms of their advice and their participation in remedying the democratic deficit, will he give those Members precedence over the Irish Republic, which has proved so reluctant to enter into the spirit which the rest of us tried to inject into the talks?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: The elected representatives in Northern Ireland probably have precedence over everybody; they all know—at least, I hope that they do —that they can come to see me about any subject whenever they want, and many of them have done so.
I do not think that I shall follow the hon. Gentleman on his principal point, save to say that if any party has lacked flexibility and movement, no doubt it will be thought that there is all the more scope for movement in the further consultations in which we are about to take part.

Mr. Peter Robinson: May I associate myself with the tributes paid to Sir Ninian Stephen and his assistant, Mr. George Thompson? I add my thanks to the Secretary of State and his predecessor, and to the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Richmond and

Barnes (Mr. Hanley), for their valuable contribution during the talks, for their commitment and dedication, and for the enthusiasm that they put into the process.
Over the coming weeks and months, as the Secretary of State assesses and analyses the process which has just ended, will he consider not only where the sticking points have been but the basic structure of the talks process and the aspects of it which may have caused this degree of failure? If he concludes, as I have, that some parties at the talks were so content with the status quo—the Anglo-Irish Agreement—that they were not encouraged to move from it, will he consider introducing a level playing field by ending the marginalisation of the Unionist community in Northern Ireland which has been caused by that agreement? That would give any consultations which might take place a better chance.

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's opening remarks. I understand his position and that of his party on the Anglo-Irish Agreement, and I understand what he has said about it. The hon. Gentleman believes that there may be less incentive for his political opponents to seek changes such as those we are discussing, because they have an advantage under that agreement. I understand that point. That is not, with great respect, what we are really concerned with today.
The Anglo-Irish Agreement is in force and I reiterate that the British Government will be loyal to it. That said, it was part of the statement of 26 March 1991 by my predecessor that the British Government would seek with the Irish Government, by direct discussion, to discover whether it was possible to agree a new and more broadly based agreement either to supplement or to replace the Anglo-Irish Agreement. That is still very much part of our concerns in the process. It is the subject of strand 3 of the talks. I believe, therefore, that it would be a very desirable outcome and one that we shall work towards.

Mr. Seamus Mallon: Tributes have been paid to the Secretary of State, to the Under-Secretary of State, to the chairman and to his assistant. I add to that my tribute to the other parties taking part in the discussions—even those that wish to involve themselves in recrimination today. I sat through every session of the talks except one, so I realise that an enormous amount of effort went into the talks from every party. Some people found it necessary at times to express their positions differently by not actively taking part, and I respect that.
I do not want to answer the recriminations or to involve myself in them except to ask the Secretary of State one question when he considers and ponders the results. Did we not all know when we responded jointly to the invitation from the British Government and from the Irish Government that there would be difficult questions and that there would be issues that we should not be able to resolve easily? Did we not know that one of those would be that Unionists would not become nationalists and nationalists would not become Unionists overnight? May we now take the opportunity in the informal discussions, which I hope will lead to a resumption of formal discussions, to face those problems and difficulties, because they will not be wished away, ignored away or talked away? Sooner or later we must face them.

Sir Patrick Mayhew: There is an unearthly unanimity in the way in which right hon. and hon. Members begin their contributions. I am grateful for what the hon. Gentleman has said.
If we are sensible, we all recognise that the enormously deep-rooted problem will not be solved overnight. It must be solved by the people of Northern Ireland and it must be solved by all those with legitimate interests in the problems of Northern Ireland. The hon. Gentleman is right about that; I do not think that there is any disagreement about it. I am not depressed, although I am disappointed, that we have not got further and that in a mere six months we have not reached heads of agreement. We have plenty of time and no lack of determination.

Mr. Barry Porter: The longer I am in the House, the more glad I am that I come from the north of England where we tend to use words that mean what they say. If the purpose of the talks was to get an agreement between the parties of Northern Ireland, then I must say that they have failed. It is about time that someone used that word. There is nothing wrong with saying that. I do not believe in political alchemy and I know of no geometrician who has yet squared the circle, as was being attempted. I am glad to know that people will carry on talking. However, they always did, so there is nothing new in that.
Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that there is a formal body in existence, which can be and has shown itself to be an appropriate debating chamber—the Anglo-Irish parliamentary body? I repeat my plea to the Unionists in the Chamber to take their seats on that body. Surely that must be a way forward.

Sir Patrick Mayhew: The Anglo-Irish parliamentary body is extremely valuable and I do not doubt it benefits from the plain speaking of my hon. Friend. I always find that Yorkshiremen and those who come from other less favoured counties—

Mr. Porter: I am from Lancashire.

Sir Patrick Mayhew: Well, Yorkshiremen in particular and people from other counties which regard themselves as being in the north, never fail to remind us how bluntly they speak. That is also very much appreciated. The AIPB is a very good thing and I wish that the Unionists would take their seats in it. I value the body's reports and hope that it will continue its work.

Mr. John D. Taylor: The failure of the talks comes as no surprise to most people in Northern Ireland. The failure was inevitable because of the Dublin Government's refusal to change articles 2 and 3 and because of the clear refusal of the SDLP to agree to any form of devolved government based on elections in Northern Ireland.
In view of the imposition of the Anglo-Irish Agreement five years ago—and I am glad to hear, five years too late, that the Labour party spokesman is now against imposed solutions in Northern Ireland—and the stalemate which it has created in Northern Ireland for five years and the fool's errand that devolution now is, will the Secretary of State consider the alternative of giving the people of Northern Ireland the same rights and responsibilities as those enjoyed by their fellow citizens in Scotland, England and Wales?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I understand that there is a desire for much more answerable democratic government of Northern Ireland in Northern Ireland. I have already said that I share that objective. However, I very much share the objective that underlay the whole process, that whatever structures are set up, they shall have the widest possible degree of acceptance across the community. That is very important.
I will not be drawn into a discussion of the merits of the Anglo-Irish Agreement. It is there, it remains in force, and the British Government are loyal to it. Many advances have been made in the past few years in the way in which Northern Ireland is governed. I want to see those advances retained and built upon, but on a basis of restored democratic government locally in the Province.

Mr. James Couchman: I want to reinforce the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter) and invite the Unionists to take their place on the Anglo-Irish parliamentary body. They would make a most valuable contribution to our discussions.
Can my right hon. and learned Friend give us any idea when he might reconvene the talks between all parties? Will he assure the House that it will be a reconvening and that process will not start again from square one?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: What was agreed by the parties yesterday was that, bilaterally, discussions will resume on the basis that they have been going on over the past three or four weeks. We have got away from the strands which were convened. In the first instance, those informal discussions will take place on bilateral initiatives. After that, we must consider how we bring the matter to a conclusion. While I welcome what my hon. Friend says about getting on with it now as quickly as possible, it will not be for me to convene a formal process. It will happen more informally, and I hope as quickly as possible.

Mr. David Trimble: The way in which the talks have ended clearly demonstrates that the diktat imposed on us by the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) has been only a stumbling block which will cured by no supplement and merits only oblivion.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) said, there was considerable progress in the talks within strand 1. However, is it not the case that, once we got into the other strands, the talks rapidly deadlocked on a number of issues with the result that strand 3 never really got off the ground? As there is no likelihood of those deadlocks being resolved, is not the only rational course to go back to the issues addressed in strand I and bring them to fruition, thus ending the democratic deficit?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: Certainly there was a lot of progress in strand 1, as has been said. However, there was a lot of convergence also in strand 2. Strand 2 comprises those institutions which will be put in place to affect relationships north-south. A lot of progress was made there, but that has to be a matter primarily for those who are going to work them—political parties in Northern Ireland and the Irish Government. I do not agree that there was no progress there. In strand 3, we certainly held meetings, but it is difficult to make progress on strand 3 until the first two have got a good deal further.
I would not want the hon. Gentleman to think that I agree that there has been no merit in the Anglo-Irish


Agreement. There has been much recognition in recent years that there is a legitimate interest from outside Northern Ireland in some of the affairs that affect nationalists in Northern Ireland. That recognition has grown and it derives from the Anglo-Irish Agreement. Whether it does or does not, that recognition is a very good thing. It is something that has been reflected by all parties in the talks. I do not think that we should allow ourselves to be deflected from the really important business by a discussion of matters that took place a few years ago, let alone discussions of matters that took place perhaps 20, 30 or more years ago.

Mr. Bill Walker: My right hon. and learned Friend will know that many Conservative Members will be disappointed but not surprised at the failure of the talks. Few of us believed that they would succeed, but we wished them well. Whatever decisions are arrived at in the talks in the future—I welcome the fact that the parties are continuing to talk—at the end of the day, as long as the majority of people in Northern Ireland continue to say that they wish to remain part of the United Kingdom, this House and this Parliament will determine what happens. We should never ever walk away from that. It is our responsibility—our duty—somehow to find the answer to the democratic deficit in Northern Ireland. In fact, the rest of the United Kingdom will suffer as long as that deficit remains.

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I agree with my hon. Friend. Of course it is the responsibility of the House to govern the affairs of Northern Ireland as long as Northern Ireland remains part of the United Kingdom. That is expressly recognised in the Anglo-Irish Agreement.

Mr. Roy Beggs: Most hon. Members will feel warmed when they hear from the Secretary of State that progress has been made, but people outside the House want to know what progress has been made. On their behalf, I ask the Secretary of State whether the intransigence of the Irish Government and the insurmountability of the Ango-Irish Agreement have prevented real progress in the talks to date.

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I have tried to make it clear, and I hope that, when the hon. Gentleman reads the record, he will see the areas in which I consider that there has been agreement. Perhaps rather more important is the opinion of the independent chairman that quite substantial agreement has been made—not enough, but quite a lot. I do not think that I will help the hon. Gentleman by going over it. I am not going to follow him into recriminations of one party or another in the talks; that will not help us. I believe that we should be getting on, and I hope that he believes that we should be getting on. I do not think that we shall get on if we start pointing the finger at one participant or another.

Mr. Stuart Bell: Does the Secretary of State accept that there are great opportunities at this time for all those who live on the island of Ireland with the Single European Act coming into force on 1 January, the prospects of enhanced trade and the prospects of enhanced employment?
Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman recognise the consensus in the House that the British-Irish

inter-parliamentary body represents a forum of dialogue, co-operation and consultation that helps to unite people north and south, east and west, of these islands? May I make an appeal to Unionist Members? There are seats available for them. They would take their seats with a great welcome from the House because it would be fully in line with the traditions of democracy and freedom in Northern Ireland and the consultation and co-operation that they are seeking with the Parliament of the Republic and the Parliament of Westminster.

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I very much agree with the relevance of what the hon. Gentleman said about the Single European Act. That Act opens up prospects for much greater trade, north-south; it is surprising how little there has been until very recently. Trade and a strong economy lead to the kind of stability which is the best insurance against toleration for terrorism. That is the relevance of what has been said, just as the business that we have been engaged in over the last six months is relevant to the defeat of terrorism, which is the Government's overriding objective. I endorse what the hon. Gentleman says about the Anglo-Irish parliamentary body.

Mr. Jim Marshall: The only agreement that appears to have been reached throughout the talks is the unanimity of view that the talks were chaired well by officials or politicians.
Moving to the substance of the Secretary of State's report to the House, first, will he confirm that any overall agreement can be attained only with the consent of the Government in Dublin? Secondly, he said that he would not like to see published a blow-by-blow account of the talks. I agree, because it would make public the divisions which clearly exist. But the Secretary of State says in his statement that the participants
have identified and discussed most, if not all, of the elements which would comprise an eventual settlement".
If that is so, does not he agree that those elements should be made public so that there could be a wider public discussion of them? That would not itself prejudice any future talks between the internal parties in Northern Ireland.

Sir Patrick Mayhew: The hon. Gentleman says that hon. Members seem to recognise only one area of agreement—that the process was chaired well. I am happy to accept that. We have to begin somewhere. He asked whether we should publish the areas where we say that there has been discussion of the basic elements. The point is that everybody agreed at the beginning that nothing should be agreed until all was agreed. It may be that people at the preliminary stage said, "We could agree with this or that, provided the other." I do not think that that process would be brought to crystallisation and agreement if there were to be publication now of what has taken place. I know that it is disappointing for those who take great interest in these matters, but that I believe to be the view of all who participated in the talks.

Mr. Eddie McGrady: Does the Secretary of State agree that it was the existence and the workings of the Anglo-Irish Agreement which were the conduit which brought the otherwise distant parties together around the table? Does he further agree that the talks would be continuing to this very day if certain parties, for very good


reasons of their own, had not withdrawn from the process? We could have been talking next week if that had not happened.
I share the Secretary of State's optimism and confidence for the future. I should like to think that, notwithstanding what I hope will be a short recess, the mechanisms of getting together would be facilitated by him and by the parties in order to bring all three strands, which are so intertwined, to a successful conclusion.

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I am very anxious, as I know the hon. Gentleman is aware, to do anything I can to get this thing going and moving in the right direction. Nobody is less inclined to stand upon formality than me, so he has that assurance.
I will not take up what the hon. Gentleman said earlier. I was described by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) as an umpire. I do not think I am an umpire, but certainly an umpire does not get drawn into supporting one side or the other in a conflict, and I do not propose to do so.

Mr. David Winnick: Is it not a fact that the Anglo-Irish Agreement was approved in the House by an overwhelming majority of hon. Members on both sides`? The Unionist parties, of course, recognise the sovereignty of Parliament as regards Northern Ireland. As to the parliamentary body, there has been a remarkable breakthrough in that British and Irish parliamentarians have sat down together in the full body and in sub-committees over the past two years.
In view of the interest of a number of European countries, and now the United States, in the talks or in what may take place in Northern Ireland in future, is the Secretary of State willing, on behalf of the Government, for those Governments which are so interested, including the new Administration in the United States, to come to Northern Ireland so that they may see for themselves that we have absolutely nothing to hide?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I agree warmly with the hon. Gentleman. I encourage visits from all over the world, and when visitors come there is an almost uniform result. They say, "We had no idea that the media image was so wide of the mark." The Southern Legislative Conference of American States—senators and congressmen from the southern states—is the most recent example. They spent the thick end of a week in Northern Ireland, and at the end of their stay they said, "We are going back to America to do our best to correct the image, which we regard as unrecognisable." That is so. As far as I am concerned, anyone who wants to go to Northern Ireland, from whatever quarter and with whatever prejudice, is welcome. I shall see to it that they have a fair view of Northern Ireland, and that they are free to go wherever they like and to talk to whoever they like, and they will come away wiser and, I trust, happier people.

Mr. Harry Barnes: Were the talks exclusively concerned with constitutional, political and security matters or were economic and social affairs discussed, as the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) seemed to suggest? One way to tackle the situation in Northern Ireland and to undermine sectarianism is to make progress in dealing with the unemployment, deprivation and poverty which exist there and throughout the island of Ireland.

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I assure the hon. Gentleman that they were included. During those six months there were times when I thought that nothing under the sun was excluded. The extremely important matters that he mentioned were certainly included, for the reason that he identified. Economic strength and the elimination of deprivation and disadvantage, wherever they may be found, are important in their own right, and to inculcate stability. That is why the British Government are so anxious to target areas of social need—as we do—and to target areas such as Belfast and Londonderry, where financial help can get businesses and employment going. That is why the MacBride principles, which are espoused in certain areas of the United States, are so deeply damaging because they are destructive of jobs, and that is why they are opposed by every constitutional party in Northern Ireland and supported only by Sinn Fein.

Ms. Kate Hoey: I am sure that the majority of people in Northern Ireland would agree with what the Secretary of State said about looking to the future and not to the past and not recriminating about what has gone on. Does he agree that in the foreseeable future Northern Ireland will stay part of the United Kingdom and that during that time the people there should be treated in the same way as the rest of the citizens in the kingdom? Why does he not agree to set up a Select Committee on Northern Ireland immediately?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: The hon. Lady is right to say that Northern Ireland will remain part of the United Kingdom in the foreseeable future—as long as the majority of people living there wish to do so. If they change their minds, it will cease to be a part of the United Kingdom. That has been made perfectly clear for many years.
The hon. Lady asks about a Select Committee. I remind her that, in their response to the report of the Procedure Committee, the Government said that they had no objection to such a Select Committee—provided that setting it up met with the approval of the House—but that it would have to have the support of the broad community in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is it not rather strange that along comes the ex-Attorney General, Mr. Smoothie, who could have said all he needed to say in a few sentences? The Government's policies have failed. They have gone down the pan, but he is trying to kid us along that somehow everything remains the same. The truth is that we need a new political initiative in Ireland, and that is to get the troops out. I intervened when the Secretary of State talked about convergence because he could not get convergence between two nation states. What chance has he got in Maastricht with 12 nation states?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: The hon. Gentleman has lost his form since I used to see him off over Attorney-General's questions; he is out of practice. The British Government do not adopt what he calls the "troops out" policy because we have more concern for the real interests of ordinary people in Northern Ireland than he could ever begin to understand.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: It may be of little moment, but some hon. Members believe that the Anglo-Irish Agreement should have been entitled the British-Irish Agreement.
Although it is reassuring to hear the Secretary of State say that the Government hold to the view that there can be no agreement other than a comprehensive agreement by all the parties and that therefore the Government will never seek to impose a change on Northern Ireland, will he assure me that that message will be conveyed to Washington? Will he further assure me that President-elect Clinton will be most carefully apprised of the current circumstances surrounding those talks? Surely the days of the American interventionist role in Europe are coming to an end.

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I have been rather grateful, as have most people in this country, for the concern which the Americans have shown in the past 45 years for our affairs here in Europe. However, we must distinguish between what is said in the heat of a hotly contested election campaign and what is likely to be the considered policy of a great ally of this country and a great nation. As I have said, the more people come to see what Northern Ireland is really like, the better. But it is important that they should realise that we need not so much a peace envoy as agreement in the process of constitutional talks now engaging us, which the whole House supports.

Points of Order

Mr. Ray Powell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I assume that you will shortly be holding a ballot for notices of motions for 27 November. I know that you are busy and must give a tremendous amount of thought to all the processes in the House. May I remind you, however, that last Wednesday you announced the names of those who were successful in the ballot for Friday 20 November. Last Wednesday we debated further the European Communities Bill. I expect that most hon. Members will remember that day. My name appeared in column 280 of the Official Report of 4 November as the first to be selected in the ballot for 20 November. In recent months, some Opposition Members have accused me of ballot rigging. I should not like anyone to suggest or imply that I have been responsible for rigging this ballot in any way.
In the blue pages of the Order Paper for 4 November, page 1179 reads:
Mr. Ray Powell … To call attention to a subject and to move a resolution".
On 5 November, I received a letter from the Table Office informing me that I had been drawn first in the ballot of 4 November for Private Members' Notices of Motions and that, to have priority under Standing Order No. 13, I was requested to give notice of the subject before the rising of the House on Wednesday 11 November—today. Yesterday afternoon, I took the opportunity to give notice of the subject that I intend to move on 20 November. The subject was "the fear, plight and poverty of pensioners".
When I put that to the Table Office, there was no suggestion that there had been any change or mistake about who had come first in the ballot for 20 November. Then, at near to midnight when I was in my room, the Clerk from the Table Office called to inform me that I did not have the number one spot for notice of motions for Friday 20 November, but that the hon. Member for Norfolk. North (Mr. Ralph Howell) did.
My point of order to you, Madam Speaker, is that six clear days elapsed between when I was informed of the change and when you announced from the Chair, and all Opposition Members believed, that I was first in the ballot for 20 November. I had been assured that the maximum publicity would centre on the important subject that I had chosen, especially this year. The local and national—

Madam Speaker: Order. It is not a matter for me.

Mr. Powell: But it is for you, Madam Speaker, to rule on the matter. There is no one else whom I can approach, My office has sent out publicity to pensioners' organisations throughout the country highlighting the problems and difficulties for pensioners, particularly now just before the onset of winter. Many pensioners are worried and fear that they will not be able to pay their bills, and are concerned about what will happen if they become homeless. As a result of the strong-arm tactics of the Whips Office last week that we read about—

Madam Speaker: Order. I want to hear no more about the Whips Office from a man who was himself a Whip. I can rule on the matter as the hon. Gentleman is now addressing the subject rather than speaking about technical matters.

Mr. Powell: I was informed of the change last night, and protested that six days had elapsed. Madam Speaker, you know that we have only one or two days in which to notify the Official Report when we want anything altered. Its staff tell us that they will not alter any part of the report after two or three days. Why does the Table Office have a licence to alter the decision recorded in Hansard when preparations have already been made for my debate on 20 November? Why does the Table Office have the right to make alterations when hon. Members do not have a similar right? I want you, Madam Speaker, to rule that the announcement that you made a week ago today still stands and I can go ahead with my debate on 20 November.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. I doubt that I need any further points of order after such a long explanation from the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell).
I remember the day very well. The House was excited about a forthcoming debate. There is no question but that the successful candidate in the ballot was Mr. Ralph Howell, not Mr. Ray Powell. The mistake has been made, which is to be greatly regretted. I understand the anxiety of the hon. Member for Ogmore, who has done much to inform his constituents about the subject that he wished to raise only to find that it is not to be debated, which is also to be regretted. There is no doubt that Mr. Ralph Howell, not Mr. Ray Powell, was successful in the ballot. If the hon. Member for Ogmore looks at the Ballot Book, he will see that the number drawn out was clearly that of Mr. Ralph Howell. A mistake was subsequently made, for which there has been an apology. I do not know how lucky the hon. Gentleman is in ballots—I have never been successful—but if he waits a while he can see whether he is successful today.

Mr. Alun Michael: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: Order. There can be nothing further to be said on that point of order. I have dealt with the matter.

Mr. Tony Marlow: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I wonder whether your in-tray has, like mine, been burdened with a glossy piece of paper known as a baby Maastricht. The Foreign Office has called the document "Britain in Europe—the European Community and Your Future". If you have yet to receive a copy, you will be pleased to know that you can get one free through Freepost. However, if you were to scan its pages, I believe that you would be less than pleased as it is not objective, but blatant propaganda. I shall not weary the House with several examples of propaganda; I will give just one. It states:
Aren't we on a slippery slope to federalism?

The Government say, "No", but we know that Martin Bangemann says, "Yes"—

Mr. Bob Cryer: And he was speaking the truth.

Mr. Marlow: As the hon. Gentleman says—

Madam Speaker: Order. The point of order must be directed to me. The hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) has raised points of order hundreds of times and knows the procedure.

Mr. Marlow: I am sorry, Madam Speaker. Although I have been a Member for a long time, I am distracted from time to time, for which I apologise.
The leaflet is propaganda. I have obtained from the Library the background on the Governments information service which sets out the rules under which they must operate. It states that some conventions have been established and
Government publicity should be objective and explanatory, not tendentious or polemical"—

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is abusing the time of the House. I am patient when listening to points of order, but the hon. Gentleman has not yet come to his. The hon. Gentleman is arguing a case with me, but he is not in a position to do that. If he has a point of order for me, he must come directly to it or I shall ask him to resume his seat.

Mr. Marlow: Madam Speaker, have you been asked by the Foreign Secretary whether he can give a statement on why the guidelines have been abused and why taxpayers' money is being provided to produce propaganda for circulation to taxpayers? If the Foreign Secretary has not requested a statement, what action is available to the House to stop the abuse?

Madam Speaker: The latter question must be put to the Foreign Secretary, not the Chair. The answer to the earlier question is no—the Foreign Secretary has not informed me of a statement. No Minister asks me about a statement; I am informed when a statement is to be made. I have not been so informed.
We shall now move on to the ballot for notices of motions to see whether the hon. Member for Ogmore can be lucky this time.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR FRIDAY 27 NOVEMBER 1992

Members successful in the ballot were:

Mr. Tam Dalyell

Mr. Roger Knapman

Mr. Cyril D. Townsend

General Election Expenses Reform

Mr. Paul Flynn: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to control general election expenses within limits set nationally and in each constituency; and for connected purposes.
Many hon. Members have travelled worldwide to observe the electoral processes of many of the newly democratised countries. We have rarely found anything to complain about in their newly minted democratic systems. But I wonder what the verdict of observers from Romania, Estonia and Hungary might be on our electoral system, had they been here in April. I believe that they would have said that the system was basically sound, but long overdue for care and maintenance, especially in its weakest sector—its failure to control national spending.
We have just witnessed in the United States the power that money deployed in prodigious quantities can have to persuade one voter in five to vote for a previously little known candidate. In Britain we are in an extremely foolish position. For more than 100 years we have rigidly controlled local spending by individual candidates. That reform was introduced to end the practice then known as bribing and treating, which dishonoured the electoral process in the last century. Since 1974 an aberration in the law has allowed parties to spend unlimited sums of money on so-called national spending, which means that spending is allowed on publicity which mentions the party's name, but not the candidate's name.
Not surprisingly, since that time national spending has increased and local spending has decreased. At the last two elections, for every £1 spent locally £8 was spent nationally. The law frets and worries about the minnows while the great fat salmon sail by unhindered. The most authoritative calculation that I can find on the comparative spending of the three main parties in the last two general elections is that for every £1 spent by the Liberal Democrats, Labour spent £4 and the Conservative party spent £9—more that all other parties combined.
At an election the incumbent party already has enormous advantages. Earlier, there was a point of order about the possible use of Government money for propaganda. A great avalanche of Government so-called advertising precedes a general election. The Government have an obedient press and control of their own advertising in a friendly poster industry. The advantage of the richest party is magnified to an even greater extent because the so-called national advertising is concentrated in the 100-plus key marginal constituencies which determine the election result.
I have searched for some scientific analysis of how persuasive were the "double whammy" and "tax bombshell" posters in April. There is none, but subjective evidence shows that that message was repeated on many billboards and, although it was dishonest, it had an enormous effect in influencing people's voting choice. However, there is an even greater threat to the integrity of our system—the way in which the poster sites were distributed. Three huge blocks of valuable poster sites were booked in the name of commercial companies before the date of the general election was announced, and many of them were booked without the knowledge or consent of those companies.
The most significant feature was that 2,000 poster sites were booked in the name of the Imperial Tobacco Company which immediately handed over those sites to be used by the Conservative party. In a frank statement, Mr. Peter Middleton, the marketing manager of that company said that as Labour and the Liberal democrats had said that they would support a ban on tobacco advertising, the company would like to see the Conservatives re-elected because it believed that they would continue to oppose the advertising ban.
The refusal to support a ban on advertising is one of the promises that the Government have honoured, and they continue—quite disgracefully and against all the evidence and public opinion—to oppose such a ban. The greatest threat is that there is nothing to prevent an individual, a company or even a country with enormous amounts of money, however malign their intentions or anti-social their views, to enter the British electoral system and spend millions£there is no limit whatever—to persuade voters. Our system, if it is not yet corrupted, is wide open and inviting corruption to come in. Vote buying is returning to British elections.
The remedy that the Bill provides is the establishment of a national registration system for political parties. So out of touch is the law that at present it does not even recognise the existence of political parties. The Bill seeks an electoral commission to oversee all national expenditure limits. Each party would appoint a national agent to be legally responsible for ensuring that limits are not exceeded. Those controls would be based on the number of candidates fielded by each party. The Bill's general sentiments have been publicly supported over and over again by all main British parties except one£the party which gains most from the present system.
Last week in my constituency, we commemorated the 153rd anniversary of the martyrdom of 20 Chartists who died when they demonstrated outside the Westgate hotel. That commemoration of those brave men and women who gave their lives for what they said was a noble cause is held every year. They died in the cause of protecting and strengthening the dishonoured democracy of their day. Democracy is a fragile organism and it needs the constant care and renewal that the Bill will provide.

Question put and agreed to.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Who will prepare and bring in the Bill?

Mr. Flynn: Mr. Nick Ainger, Mr. Jon Owen Jones, Mrs. Jane Kennedy, Mr. Nick Harvey, Mr. Andrew Mackinlay, Mr. Elfyn Llwyd, shades of the Newport Chartists, John Frost, Henry Vincent, George Shell and Zephaniah Williams—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must start again, giving the names of hon. Members who will bring in the Bill.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Paul Flynn, Mr. Nick Ainger, Mr. Jon Owen Jones, Mrs. Jane Kennedy, Mr. Nick Harvey, Mr. Elfyn Llwyd and Mr. Andrew Mackinlay.

GENERAL ELECTION EXPENSES REFORM

Mr. Paul Flynn accordingly presented a Bill to control general election expenses within limits set nationally and in each constituency; and for connected purposes; And the


same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 11 December and to be printed. [Bill 81].

Orders of the Day — Maintenance Orders (Reciprocal Enforcement) Bill [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. John M. Taylor): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The Bill is a modest and technical measure and, if I may presume to say so, it is narrow. It will amend the court procedures for the reciprocal enforcement of maintenance orders by magistrates courts. It will enable orders for maintenance to be enforced where one party is resident in the United Kingdom and the other party is resident in a country with which the United Kingdom has a reciprocal agreement. Until this amendment is made, a number of people will be unable to obtain the maintenance for themselves and their children to which they are entitled.
The Bill consists of four clauses and three schedules. Clause 1 will bring into effect the substantive amendments contained in schedule 1. Clause 2 will bring into effect the consequential amendments to other legislation set out in schedule 2. Clauses 3 and 4 provide for commencement and the short title of the Bill respectively. Schedule 1 contains the substantive changes to be brought into effect by the Bill. Part I amends the Maintenance Orders (Facilities for Enforcement) Act 1920 and part II amends the Maintenance Orders (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1972. Schedule 3 is a schedule of consequential repeals. I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Geoffrey Hoon: Will the Minister explain how that rather sorry state of affairs came about?

Mr. Taylor: Certainly. That state of affairs, to use the hon. Gentleman's words, was debated in the other place. As the House wants a candid answer, I must say that it was an oversight made in good faith.

Mr. Paul Boateng: We are grateful to the Minister for his candour. What occurred was a legislative cock-up of the most monumental proportions. [Interruption.] I see one of the silent ones telling me to calm down. I am not getting over-excited, at least not yet, but it is a bit rich for the Government to present only now, almost a year after the Children Act 1989 came into force on 14 October 1990, a Bill that addresses an issue that should have been addressed when the Children Act was considered both here and in the other House. Had it been so addressed, we should not have needed this Bill.
As the Minister said, we are here because of an oversight in the drafting of legislation that ought not to have happened. We do not blame the Minister personally, but my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Hoon) was right to draw the attention of the House to the fact that there is someone to blame. Since 14 October last, it has not been possible to make a claim for maintenance under the reciprocal enforcement legislation because any such claim could not be processed as a result of someone's oversight in drafting.
It has not been possible to initiate proceedings under the Maintenance Orders (Facilities for Enforcement) Act 1920 and the Maintenance Orders (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1972 because they refer expressly to a complaints procedure that, as a result of the passing of the Children Act, no longer exists. Under that Act, all procedures have to be initiated by application. Therefore, in the past year or so, about 1,000 applicants have been adversely affected. There ought to be some parliamentary draftsman or Minister, past or present, whose ears are burning because of that oversight.
The Minister said that the oversight might have occurred as a result of the speed with which the Children Act was dealt with, and the necessity to get it through. The Lord Chancellor said of the Children Act:
It was a very important stage and one which I would certainly not have liked to have forgone for the sake of ensuring that it was absolutely complete."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 22 June 1992; Vol. 1538, c. 349.]

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I seek some information from the hon. Gentleman. Will the 1,000 people who have been disadvantaged get back the money that they have lost?

Mr. Boateng: No, they will not. The hon. Lady puts her finger on the point. For the past year, such people have been without remedy, and that is a cause for concern that I know she will share. Rather than being a party matter, that is one of those oversights that both Houses have a duty, when we are considering legislation, to ensure simply does not happen.
It is no excuse for us to be told that the other place was in a hurry and had to get the Bill through. The whole point about starting Bills in the other place is that their Lordships are supposed not to be in a hurry. They are supposed to be at that wonderful stage in life when they can relax, take it easy and use their considerable endeavours in the unheated and uncontroversial atmosphere that is cultivated in the other place to give measures such as the Children Act the mature and reflective consideration that is required. In this instance, that clearly did not happen.
Not surprisingly, the Opposition welcome the Bill, as the whole House will no doubt welcome it. As the Minister said, it is a modest measure, but it is worth while looking briefly at the context in which it is being introduced. Sadly, matrimonial breakdowns are all too common, resulting in more and more lone parents, whose plight is very real. It is the duty of the House to ensure that the arrangements for initiation of maintenance proceedings and the enforcement of resulting orders are effective.
It is important not only that orders are effective in ensuring that those against whom they are made obey them and respect the order of the court but that the proceedings are brought to a conclusion as quickly as possible, with the minimum delay, fuss and inconvenience. In so doing, one ensures not only that the parents or parties making the applications receive a rapid remedy to address the financial constraints in which they often find themselves, but that the cost to the public purse through the court system is minimised.
At the moment, only 30 per cent. of lone mothers and 3 per cent. of lone fathers receive regular payments of maintenance. Some research carried out in 1990 showed

that less than 10 per cent. of lone parents' income arises from maintenance, compared with 45 per cent. from income support and 23 per cent. from net earnings. The problem of family poverty as it is associated with the receipt and payment of maintenance to lone parents is a real one. To the extent to which this modest measure addresses that problem, it is welcome.

Mr. Anthony Steen: The hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) has put his finger on the problem—errant fathers in particular manage to leave the matrimonial home, abandon their children and expect the state to pick up the tab. I should like to address the House —shortly, as always—not on the subject of the Bill's extremely narrow purpose but on the way in which it will work—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. Before the hon. Member goes down that path, let me point out that this is a Second Reading debate on a specific and narrow Bill. I hope that we shall not have a long and wide-ranging debate on matrimonial matters. I urge the hon. Member to stick to the Bill.

Mr. Steen: Your rulings are always extremely helpful, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and have great foresight in their application. I took the liberty and, you may feel, the prudent step of checking with the Public Bill Office first about whether the speech that I hope that I shall be allowed to make would be permissible. I was advised that, as this is a Second Reading debate, the modest matters that I wish to raise would be in order. I have no doubt that if you feel, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I am in any way abusing the time of the House, you will mention it in your normal courteous way.
At the outset, I said that this is a narrow Bill, dealing with a specific point which, as has been said, should have been dealt with before. None the less, it relies on magistrates courts for the execution of justice for those men and women who have been abandoned by their partner and whose children need maintenance and help from that partner. My concern is whether magistrates courts, the subject matter of this and the earlier Bill, can and should deal with such cases.
I do not know whether other hon. Members have a similar problem, but three out of every 12 cases at my advice centres every fortnight involve women who have been abandoned by men who take no responsibility for their children, expecting the wife to look after them and the state to provide the maintenance for them.
Two particular cases in the past couple of weeks clearly illustrate that point. Both concern the failure of magistrates courts to deal with serious matters of child maintenance. Magistrates seem to be inexperienced and to be advised by clerks who may not have the knowledge to deal with these matters. The result is that women who have been abandoned by men have been abandoned by the courts. The courts have not come to the aid of the abandoned women or their children but have supported the husbands, even though they have produced virtually no, or little, evidence to show that they cannot afford to look after their own children.
A constituent of mine in Dartmouth was abandoned with three children, aged nine, seven and two and a half, by her husband who has paid nothing at all and who, at the


hearing, expected the magistrates court to take up the problem and turn to the state to help the lady with her children.
Even worse is a case, which was drawn to my attention by Cornish and Company, a well-established firm of solicitors in Totnes, of a lady with one son whose husband has never paid any money for his son since he left the matrimonial home. He now owes hundreds of pounds, but the court wiped off the maintenance simply because it believed the husband's story, although there was virtually no evidence to support his claim that he could not afford to pay even £5 a week for his son. As a result, the mother has to work nights at the local hospital so that her son can have the little extras arid obtain the extra help that he needs for his education.
I am trying to point out that women are being abandoned by men and that the state is allowing, that to happen and colluding with it by paying for the abandoned children. Husbands leave the matrimonial home and remarry and the magistrates court, because of its lack of experience, tends to say that the state should pay for the children of the first marriage, allowing the husband to get off scot free. That is a national problem.
Rather than introducing this narrow Bill to provide for reciprocal arrangements around Europe and elsewhere, the Minister should show a particular interest—I know his concern in the matter because we have corresponded on it —in ensuring that magistrates courts are equipped to deal with such cases and do not allow their eyes to be closed when husbands come to court and avoid their responsibilities. That is what is happening in my area and probably in many other parts of the country.
Three or four years ago, the former Prime Minister—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has put before the House a distressing case, but it is out side the bounds of the Bill, so I shall have to urge the Minister to continue the correspondence rather than to deal with the points from the Dispatch Box.

Mr. Steen: I have the impression, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you feel that I have made my point well enough and that the House wishes to move on to other things.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The House does not want to move on to other things; it wants to stick to the Bill.

Mr. Steen: I understand the point you make so tellingly, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I rest my case by saying that I do not believe that a magistrates court can deal with those matters. The Bill will not help it to deal with them. I am worried stiff about the increasing number of women who are being abandoned by husbands who expect the state to pick up the tab for their children.
I urge the Minister to see what can be done to ensure that husbands who desert their wives and children take responsibility and pay for those children rather than expecting the state and the taxpayer to take on that responsibility.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: It is true that the Bill does not deal with some matters that are of great importance in respect of maintenance on which one would be interested to hear the Government's view

—for example, what they propose to do to tackle the problem of the high incidence of default which particularly affects those on low incomes and those with low awards.
I rise not to seek to widen the debate but out of curiosity to know what lessons the Government have learnt from this rather unusual legislative episode. It is extraordinary to have an afternoon devoted to considering, in prime time, the defects of a Bill so recently before us that appears not to have thrown up any awareness of the need that the Bill addresses. It suggests that there is something wrong with the way in which the Children Act 1989 was considered.
It is a matter of satisfaction that the Lord Chancellor's junior Minister, who is now a Member of this House, has introduced the debate and has some departmental responsibility for the Bill. That marks a considerable step forward, perhaps even to the avoidance of the kind of difficulty in which the House now finds itself. However, it raises other questions.
We are clearly not debating simply a slip of drafting. A whole circumstance has been overlooked. It suggests that the Children Act was drafted in too much of a hurry and was not subjected to the usual kind of— [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) will have an opportunity to intervene if he wishes and the Minister may feel it appropriate to answer the point.
Consideration has been given to whether Bills, particularly technical Bills, should, as a matter of course, be considered by Select Committees before they are brought to the House for Second Reading, or after Second Reading, in order for evidence to be taken. Such a procedure might be suitable in a case of this kind to avoid the difficulty that has been experienced here. However, it occurs so rarely that the Minister may have some more mundane explanation.
I am genuinely puzzled: it strikes me as extraordinary that such an obvious requirement was not spotted earlier, given the history of our procedures. We should try to learn from the omission and to devise scrutiny procedures that will prevent the time of the House from being taken up in this way. After all, we do not have a superfluity of time for primary legislation; many matters that others may consider more important are waiting in the queue, and no doubt some of those matters pertain to the Lord Chancellor's Department.
The Department may wish to consider the appropriateness of referring Bills of this kind—Bills that involve consequential changes to existing legislation—to the scrutiny of the Law Commission. It has the capacity—although not, perhaps, the resources—to give further consideration to whether the form of the legislation is appropriate. It is not entirely reasonable to expect us to pick up certain technical matters in Standing Committee; such matters require the technical advice of a body such as the Law Commission.
That prompts me to ask whether the Lord Chancellor's Department is considering a better method of scrutinising what might be described as law reform measures. As was suggested in the other place by Lord Hailsham, this kind of piecemeal approach makes the statute book extrernely difficult for the practitioner to manage. We now have two Acts where one would have done, and the second introduces most of its substantial modifications very obscurely by means of schedules. That is a far from ideal way of legislating, but it exemplifies a practice that—alas —is becoming too common.

Mr. Malcolm Wicks: Hon. Members on both sides of the House have described the Bill as a modest measure. To acquaint myself with it, I consulted the report of the Second Reading debate in the other place. I observed that it took up five columns of Hansard. The report was followed by a report of their lordships' debate on court practice—the wearing of wigs and gowns—which took up not five but 25 columns.
Although that may support the claim that it is a modest measure, the Bill raises issues which are far from modest and whose importance is likely to increase, both in this country and throughout Europe. I feel that the reciprocal arrangements may not be adequate, and may need to be complimented in the near future by legislation above national level—possibly Europewide legislation. The demography of our times will make measures such as this far more important. It is not just a British concern; I understand that the courts are also concerned with foreign nationals who may come to Britain—often from other EC countries—and against whom their spouses or ex-spouses in those countries may make orders.
Between 1960 and 1985—no more up-to-date figures are available—the divorce rate quadrupled throughout the EC countries. In the EC countries as a whole, one in 10 families with children is now a one-parent family. Of course, the rate is far higher in this country. One of the reasons why I welcome the Bill—despite the circumstances in which we are debating it—is its importance to family life in Britain and in Europe as a whole. It also deals with what, sadly, will become an increasingly important aspect of family law.
By a sad coincidence, the increase in family breakdowns is occurring at a time of greater labour mobility across Europe. One of the features of the internal market, and of current European policy, is the way in which British people are encouraged to work in other European countries—and, indeed, other Europeans are encouraged to work in Britain. Because of that, there will be more opportunities for men, in particular, to leave their families behind and to escape maintenance obligations.
A more complicated scenario may also arise. Let us suppose that a British family follows the father's work to Brussels or Milan, and the marriage breaks up in that foreign city. The father may go on to another European country, leaving a family who may wish to return to Britain. The issues raised in the Bill are more important than we assume. As the hon. Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) pointed out, it is difficult enough to enforce the relevant obligations in this country; how much more difficult will it be when families are scattered across Europe, and questions of jurisdiction arise relating to access, custody and maintenance? Those are substantial issues, and it does not surprise me to learn that the European Commission is beginning to commission studies of them.
A social revolution involving family change is happening in Europe at approximately the same time as the revolution in labour and family mobility. That will make legislation such as this increasingly important. When the Child Support Act comes into force next April, fathers —the absent parent is usually the father—may find that, far from escaping their maintenance obligations as they often do now, they are asked by the new agency to pay £20, £30 or £40 a week, and rightly so. The chance of a job in

another part of Europe—or in Australia, New Zealand, or the United States—may then become very attractive financially. The current changes make the Bill more important than the House may assume, and it may need to be complemented by more far-reaching legislation in the future.
The Bill is important for another reason. Throughout the world we are becoming increasingly concerned about children's welfare, and about the child poverty which has already been described. That is not a uniquely British phenomenon, but 70 per cent. of British children in one-parent families depend on income support, and—as has already been said—most do not receive maintenance. The legislation on child support and maintenance that has been introduced in some American states, in New Zealand, in Australia and in other parts of Europe demonstrates increasing awareness about children's welfare. We need to recognise the obligations of the state in regard to social security and employment training; we also need to recognise the duties and responsibilities of parents.

Mr. Steen: On the wages paid to the average person in this country, a man who abandons his children and then remarries often cannot pay for the maintenance of both families. Another problem is that the magistrates courts are not necessarily the right people to pursue husbands who can afford to pay maintenance. The hon. Gentleman has raised some even more complicated issues, and he was right to do so. Answers need to be given.

Mr. Wicks: I agreed with the hon. Gentleman's first point. On any wages which are other than fabulous, it is particularly difficult to support two families at a time of economic recession. The Child Support Act contains a necessarily complicated formula to try to deal with the dual obligations of such parents, which we shall no doubt discuss when the Act is implemented. My judgment, however, and the judgment of the legislation, is that that should not enable him—or, sometimes, her—to escape duties towards the first children.
Some people might adopt a harsher tone and say that if legislation such as this makes it difficult for a father to father a second group of children, it may be right and proper that he should think twice before doing so. We are dealing, however, with very complex matters and my argument is that they will grow more complex and become more of a challenge for the House.
Britain is not alone in facing these issues. Throughout the world, Governments are trying to get to grips with them. At the heart of it, there has to be a new definition of what a parent's rights and responsibilities are. I for one £faced with the appalling evidence of child poverty, which could grow worse, given the family changes that I have mentioned£think that we have to be tough-minded about enforcing parental obligations. Therefore, I welcome this admittedly modest measure.

Mr. David Trimble: This measure has been introduced as a small technical measure although, as the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Wicks) said, it touches on a wide range of issues which go beyond the merely technical. I listened to his speech with considerable interest and considerable agreement.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department told us that this issue should have been


addressed in the Children Act 1989 and that the oversight stems from its omission. I cannot forbear, Mr. Deputy Speaker, from remarking that Northern Ireland is at least fortunate in having no equivalent to the Children Act, even though we have been pressing in Northern Ireland for some time for equivalent legislation, but that is a passing complaint.
I noted with particular interest the comments made by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) regarding the style of the legislation and the manner of its enactment. I endorse entirely what he said about the drafting style. The modern legislative drafting style is getting worse and worse. In places, the Bill is almost unintelligible. I see no reason why its substantive provisions cannot be placed in the clauses. I do not know why so many of them are buried in schedules, in a way that is particularly difficult to follow.
I noted also the hon. Gentleman's comment that technical measures such as this ought to be considered by a Select Committee, or referred to other bodies. It reminds me of a comment that was made, I believe, by the Foreign Secretary at a fringe meeting of his party's conference the year before last, when he suggested that there was a case for referring a number of measures to Special Standing Committees of this House instead of having the Standing Committee procedure which mirrors the normal Second Reading style of debate. It would be well worth looking into that suggestion.
I rise to speak on the Bill for, I regret to say, entirely parochial reasons. This measure also extends to Northern Ireland. Admittedly, it does so only with regard to the provisions for variation and revocation of maintenance orders, the substance of which I welcome. The fact that this primary legislation will go through its normal stages of Second Reading, Committee stage, Report, and so on and contain within it provisions which apply to Northern Ireland is very welcome. For many years, those of us who sit on this Bench have complained about the iniquitous system of legislating for Northern Ireland by means of Orders in Council which are only perfunctorily debated and cannot be amended.
When we complain, one of the reasons given for needing Orders in Council for Northern Ireland is that that procedure maintains the integrity of the statute book in Northern Ireland—in other words, that the Northern Ireland statutes contain Orders in Council and that there will be no interference with Northern Ireland legislation by United Kingdom legislation. The Bill, however, extends to Northern Ireland and amends Orders in Council. Consequently, it interferes with the so-called integrity of the Northern Ireland statute book.
I do not complain about that—I commend it. It demonstrates what we on this Bench have said time and time again—that there is absolutely no reason why legislation for Northern Ireland cannot be made in the normal way. We welcome in particular that aspect of this measure and hope that it will increasingly be a model for other measures.

Mr. Boateng: By leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This has been a short, although important, debate. As it developed, it demonstrated to the wider world one of the advantages that we have in this place —we are able to draw on the experience that hon.
Members gain in their constituency surgeries. We are also able to draw on their clearly displayed—I refer to the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Wicks)—knowledge, which is deep and detailed, of a subject that has led to legislation such as this. It has been a good debate.
The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) called into question, rightly so with respect to the history of this legislation, our having any complacency about the efficacy of our procedures for checking and overseeing the stages of the legislative process, in order to ensure that drafting and content oversights such as this—it goes as deep as that—are not repeated.
One of the odd features about the passage of the Bill is that, even when this matter was brought before the other House to deal with the oversight in the Children Act, it was necessary for their Lordships to consider on Report no fewer than 15 amendments to the Bill as it was after Second Reading in the other place. It is incredible that it was found necessary to amend it 15 times after its Second Reading.
Hon. Members will have read the proceedings on Second Reading and Report in the other place and seen that their Lordships proceeded at a fast pace—at considerably more than a gallop on the part of the Lord Chancellor. Such a speed would have done credit to a participant in the Derby. The way in which their Lordships went through those amendments was incredible.
I make no complaint about that, provided that we can be absolutely sure that their Lordships got it right and that we shall not find next year, or the year after, that again we have to go through that which we seek to achieve on this occasion. I anticipate—for it requires no great foresight—that we shall not spend all that much time on the Committee and Report stages of the Bill.
When the Minister responds to the points made by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland, I hope that he will state clearly that he and his Department are satisfied that the matter has now been dealt with, that the Bill is in its final state and that we shall not have to come back here, years hence, to deal with it again.
I wholeheartedly endorse the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-West. He was absolutely right to set the debate about reciprocal arrangements in a European context. In July this year., a report was published by the Family and Policy Studies Centre entitled "Lone Parents in the European Community", of which my hon. Friend is aware. The evidence is that report makes it clear that lone parenting is likely to become an even more important issue in Europe in the next few decades as a result of rising divorce rates and an increased number of births outside marriage.
The evidence suggests that the southern European countries are following the north. An examination of the figures for lone parents in Europe shows that there is a marked distinction between Greece, Spain and Italy, and the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom heads the list, with 17 per cent. of families with children under 18 headed by a lone parent. The figures for Greece, Spain, Italy and southern Europe fall as low as 5 and 6 per cent. It is clear that the position is changing. The issue will not go away.
It is important that we examine the reciprocal arrangements carefully and that we have the means to do so. I hope that the Minister will give an assurance that the Lord Chancellor's Department will take on board the points made this afternoon in the debate and that this


important issue will be addressed effectively in the interests, above all, of the children and the deserted spouses.

Mr. John M. Taylor: With the leave of the House, I wish to reply to the debate. Perhaps I should deal with the last point first. The hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) asked whether the Lord Chancellor's Department would take seriously the comments made in the debate this afternoon. I tell him and the other hon. Members who have taken the trouble to attend the debate that the answer is an emphatic yes. I am here to take careful note of some valuable points that have been made in the debate.
I hope that the House will not consider it discourteous if I say that many of the matters raised in the debate—for perfectly understandable reasons—may fall just outside a strict interpretation of the Bill's narrow purposes, but I shall try to reply as best I can.
The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) addressed the issue constructively. He commenced his remarks by addressing the matter of default. I say to him with the seriousness that his comments merit that he knows as well as I do—it is a humbling thing to come to terms with—that, sadly, no amount of legislation and rejigging even of the jurisdiction and practices of magistrates can stop marriages breaking down or people behaving thoroughly unpleasantly towards each other and defaulting and welshing on their obligations to members of their families. That is part of the original sin of the subject, and we all know it.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his personal remarks about the job that I have been asked to do and the fact that the Lord Chancellor's Department is for the first time directly represented in the House of Commons. I always thought that it was important for the Lord Chancellor's Department to be represented in this House, but I did not know that I would be given the job.
I accept what the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members have said about scrutiny. The hon. Gentleman's remarks were about the complexity of the statute book and were similar to those made by the Lord Hailsham in another place. As the hon. Gentleman is a distinguished law practitioner, he might follow me if I said that most practitioners in this subject, who are probably specialists, would be more inclined to use "Stone's Justices' Manual" than the statute book.
I join other hon. Members in congratulating the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Wicks) on his excellent and thoughtful speech. Clearly, he knows the subject well. As he developed his remarks into wider jurisdictions, he may be interested to know that the present score is that the United Kingdom has reciprocity with 100 jurisdictions. But that position will develop. We will need to examine the position closely and take the new opportunities where they arise.
The hon. Member for Croydon, North-West may also be reassured, as will the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland, that in the other place the Lord Chancellor undertook to examine the possibility of consolidating this law. Meanwhile, I thank the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West for his thoughtful contribution.
The hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) correctly distinguished the position in Northern Ireland. As he rightly pointed out, apart from the provisions on variation and revocation of orders which also apply in Northern Ireland, the amendments in the Bill affect only proceedings in magistrates courts in England and Wales. I noted the pleasure with which the hon. Gentleman welcomed the references to Northern Ireland in the primary legislation. That point was not lost on us.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) is, to his eternal credit, persistently concerned about matrimonial welfare—I do not think that he will mind if I say persistently. I cannot comment on his individual cases. But if he would like to write to me, as he regularly does, I shall gladly examine them. He wondered whether magistrates courts were the right forum. Since 1920 magistrates courts have been dealing with the narrow range of cases that we are discussing today.
The Bill aims not to change policy but to deal with procedural changes—that is a rather negative remark. I shall tell my hon. Friend something more encouraging. The child support agency, which will deal with domestic maintenance claims in the future and seek to improve the enforcement of them, will be set up with effect from 5 April 1993. I am sure that my hon. Friend would prefer the agency to be set up at the end of next week. The agency will have a valuable role. None of us are relaxed in the slightest about the degree of default and the difficulties of enforcement.
The Government's White Paper entitled "A New Framework for Local Justice" says much about improving best practice in magistrates courts and bringing all of them up to somewhere near the best, with an inspectorate to follow through.
Unfortunately, my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) is not in her place. However, I shall answer her intervention about maintenance and the position of those who may have been put in difficulty by the legislative need of repair. Maintenance is payable for the period for which it is claimed. It is therefore payable in respect of the periods both before and after the commencement of the Bill.
I interpret that rather cryptic advice to mean that people will not lose in the circumstances described. I hope that that is true, but I shall certainly research the matter.
I end my speech as I began it, by responding to the hon. Member for Brent, South. At the risk of saying this twice, I tell him that Parliament overlooked the deficiency to which I referred in my opening speech and which I dealt with candidly. I do not seek to step aside in any way from that reality. There was an oversight, but it was committed in good faith, and we have brought the remedy before the House as fast as we could. With the good will of the House, we shall secure that remedy today.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House. —[Mr. Robert G. Hughes.]

Bill immediately considered in Committee: reported, without amendment.

Order for Third Reading read.

Motion made—[Mr. John M. Taylor]—and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

Mr. Steen: I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for being so candid with the House and for the generous things that he said he would do as a result of the many contributions that have been made from both sides of the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed without amendment.

Orders of the Day — Registered Homes (Northern Ireland)

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Jeremy Hanley): I beg to move,
That the draft Registered Homes (Northern Ireland) Order 1992, which was laid before this House on 19th October, be approved.
My noble Friend Lord Arran, who now has responsibility for health and personal social services in Northern Ireland, will introduce this order in another place, but it is my pleasure to introduce it to the House this evening. It covers a narrow and specific field—that of the regulation of standards of care in registered homes.
It strengthens, updates and replaces the existing Northern Ireland legislation on the registration and inspection of residential care homes and nursing homes in the private and voluntary sectors. Those homes provide accommodation and care for a wide range of people who are unable to continue living independently in their own homes because of old age and infirmity, illness or disabilities.
It may be helpful to the House if I take a few minutes to outline the background to the order and say a few words about those new provisions that will strengthen the powers of registering authorities in Northern Ireland—the four health and social services boards—to register and inspect private and voluntary homes.
In late 1988 and early 1989, the Department of Health and Social Services conducted a review of existing Northern Ireland legislation relating to the registration and inspection of private and voluntary sector homes. The review was prompted at the time by two main factors. The first of these was the very substantial increase in recent years in the number of such homes in Northern Ireland, which led to growing pressure on the boards to ensure that satisfactory standards of care were being maintained. The second main factor was the more up-to-date legislative provisions made in England and Wales through the Registered Homes Act 1984 and its associated subordinate legislation compared with the legislation in Northern Ireland dating from the early 1970s.
As part of that review, the Department issued a comprehensive consultative paper which invited comment from a wide range of interested statutory, voluntary and private sector organisations and individuals. About 100 responses were received. Although the responses revealed differences of opinion and emphasis on individual matters of detail, it was clear that there was widespread support for the view that the existing legislation needed to be strengthened and brought broadly into line with the 1984 Act.
The order includes a number of new provisions that strengthen the boards' ability to ensure that private and voluntary sector homes deliver satisfactory standards of care to their residents or patients. It provides for the registration of both the person or organisation in control of a home and, where different, the manager. It also enables the Department by regulation to require notice to be given during prolonged absence of the registered person or persons.
The order also provides for dual registration of a home as both a residential care home and a nursing home, so that, for example, elderly clients who become ill or more frail and therefore in need of nursing care do not have to


move out of what could be called their home. It introduces a procedure for the urgent cancellation of a registration in cases where a justice of the peace is satisfied that the residents are at serious risk. It also gives inspectors authorised by the Department a right of entry at all times to private and voluntary sector residential care and nursing homes.
The order enables the Department of Health and Social Services, for the first time, to prescribe by regulation registration fees and annual fees for residential care homes and annual fees for nursing homes. Current legislation provides only for the charging of registration fees for nursing homes. The introduction of fees will help, as far as is practicable, to make the boards' work of regulating the homes self-financing. The order also establishes a registered homes tribunal to hear appeals from proprietors of private and voluntary homes against decisions of the boards.
The order will, for the most part, bring Northern Ireland into line with the legislation on the regulation of similar homes in England and Wales—the Registered Homes Act 1984, to which I have already referred. It also takes account of the provisions of the Registered Homes (Amendment) Act 1991.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the Minister explain to the House the basic difference between the regulation before the House and those in the rest of the United Kingdom? Will he inform the House what all the talk concerning appointing a key worker for each individual in the homes is about? How much will it cost, and will the homes have to pay for it?

Mr. Hanley: I shall take advice on the matter and reply to the hon. Gentleman during the evening.
The equivalent provisions in the order are intended to provide the minimum controls necessary to prevent unsuitable people from operating small residential care homes for fewer than four people. Under existing legislation in Northern Ireland, such small homes have always had to be registered.
The provisions are designed to safeguard vulnerable people from any unscrupulous owners of small homes, without subjecting families who are participating in such worthwhile schemes as the stay-a-while scheme for elderly people and adult placement schemes for mentally handicapped people to the full rigours of registration applied to the owners of larger homes.
The order re-enacts the existing powers of the Department to make regulations in relation to the conduct of homes. Although the primary legislation provides, therefore, the legislative framework for the monitoring of standards of care and accommodation in private and voluntary sector residential care homes and nursing homes, it will nevertheless, like the 1984 Act, need to be underpinned by detailed regulations to be made by the Department on matters such as the records to be kept in homes, the registers, consultation with fire authorities, the provision of services and facilities, religious observance, the notification of death, serious accident or illness of residents or patients, complaints procedures and the frequency of inspections.
The order also provides a convenient vehicle for an amendment to the Health and Personal Social Services

(Northern Ireland) Order 1972 which is required to ensure that the Department and health and social services boards have unequivocal powers to contract for the provision of health and personal social services with private and voluntary sector providers.
This amendment is contained in paragraph 2(1) and (2) of schedule 1 to the order. Although this amendment can only be related loosely to the other provisions of the order, it is required as a matter of urgency following legal advice that the existing contractual powers in the 1972 order are open to challenge.
The proposal for a draft order was published for comment on 30 January 1992. There were only 13 replies. All welcomed the general content of the draft order, but there were some comments and suggestions about individual provisions.

Mr. Seamus Mallon: My point is not directly relevant to the order, but this debate is an opportunity to make a point about a nursing home in my constituency which does a tremendous job in serving many people. It is 300 yards from the main road, and for years the Department of the Environment has refused to salt the road from the main road to the entrance to the nursing home. Throughout the year, doctors have to call, ambulances have to call and nurses have to travel to the home at all times of the day and night, yet the Department has made this stupid decision. Will the Minister take that point on board in relation to all nursing homes and not only in relation to the one I have talked about?

Mr. John D. Taylor: What is salt for the goose is salt for the gander.

Mr. Mallon: What is salt for the goose is salt for all ganders. The point is worth considering and this is an opportunity to enlist the Minister's help in dealing with it.

Mr. Hanley: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question. I assure him that, if he writes to me, I shall ensure that the matter is dealt with by my Lord Arran in its health and social services aspects and by the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins), in its Department of the Environment aspects. If the hon. Gentleman writes to me, I shall ensure that answers are given to his questions.
I was saying that when the draft order was published for comment earlier this year, only 13 replies were received, which were generally supportive. I am most grateful to those who examined the proposals scrupulously in the interests of some of our most vulnerable citizens. I am grateful for those representations, because a few minor amendments were required as a result of the consultations. That has helped to improve the order.
It may seem surprising that the proposed legislation—

Mr. Taylor: It is interesting that the Minister agreed to make some amendments to the order as a result of representations from 13 parties. Is he prepared to make any changes to the order as a result of representations from elected Members this evening?

Mr. Hanley: Of the 13 representations we received on the order, not one came from a Member of this House.

Mr. Taylor: I must push the Minister to answer the people of Northern Ireland honestly because he has avoided answering the question. Will the Minister agree to


any amendments to the order expressed by any elected Member this evening, whether on the Conservative, Labour, Liberal Democrat, Democratic Unionist or Ulster Unionist Benches?

Mr. Hanley: I have given the right hon. Gentleman my answer. Representations have been made. The time scale for representations has now ended and the order is before the House tonight. The right hon. Gentleman knows the procedure of legislation, so he knows exactly what will happen tonight. If he wishes to press for a Division on an order that has been amended thanks to representations, I need say no more.

Mr. Eddie McGrady: I do not want the Minister to be led into putting incorrect information on the record. I know that he has a problem because he is speaking today on behalf of a Minister in another place. I for one have made representations to the Department on many issues in the order.

Mr. Hanley: With respect, that is a different matter. The hon. Gentleman has a long record of being most constructive in his advice. His brother, the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon), also has a long record of giving advice to the Department on these matters —I readily admit that. However, of the 13 representations that related solely to the order, not one came from an elected Member. If my information is wrong, I shall willingly apologise to the hon. Gentleman in writing.

Mr. Peter Robinson: I am not attempting to catch the Minister on the hop because I know that the matter is not his direct responsibility, although he answers in this House for it. My hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady), as I understand it, and I wrote to the Department on the issue and asked for the Northern Ireland Care Homes Association to be permitted to have a meeting with the Minister in another place. All three of us wrote asking for such a meeting, but to this day Lord Arran has refused to give us a meeting.

Mr. Hanley: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comment. As he readily admitted, I am not aware of that set of circumstances. I can only inquire. Naturally, I apologise to the House. I do not have responsibility for health and personal social services in Northern Ireland, although I answer for those matters here. I shall use any provisions available to me to answer questions during the evening. I certainly need to seek advice from those who deal with these matters on a day-to-day basis.

Rev. Ian Paisley: When the Minister makes inquiries, will he ask Lord Arran to hand over to him the large file which I presented to him? Will Lord Arran hand over to the Minister the correspondence about that file? Will he hand over his reply to the Minister so that the Minister can study it and see how the people concerned have been treated?
I am sure that the Minister agrees that the order is intended to help all people who want to help the elderly and to run homes up to standard. I do not want to hear any Minister saying that we are pleading for special cases or that we are pleading that there should not be the right standards. That is not our business here tonight. We want

the highest possible standards, but we also want the people who have been engaged in the matter to be consulted and helped.

Mr. Hanley: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's comments and I should like to answer a question that he raised earlier. He wanted to know the main difference between the order and the Registered Homes Act 1984. The order attempts to put the registration and inspection of residential care homes and nursing homes on as much the same basis as possible. Unlike the 1984 Act, the order requires the manager of both types of home to be registered together with the persons who own or control the home.
The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) wanted to know whether home owners would have to pay for the key workers required to be appointed by the board. Key workers will be appointed by boards under the new community care reforms from next April. They will be board employees who will have to keep under review the care needs of all vulnerable people, including those placed in homes. The hon. Member for Antrim, North was interested in the costs. The cost of case management and key worker provision will not be borne by proprietors of homes. I hope that that reassures the hon. Gentleman.
The hon. Member for Antrim, North also wanted to know why my noble Friend Lord Arran did not receive a delegation from the Northern Ireland Care Homes Association. The association's representations were riot about the registered homes proposal. They were about allegations of how boards were treating home proprietors at the moment. That is different from the subject that we are concentrating on tonight. I shall willingly look into the statements made by the hon. Member for Antrim, North and let him know about the other matter in due course.

Rev. Ian Paisley: There were representations on that very subject from 160 home owners controlling 3,600 beds. They were aware of the draft order but wanted their current problems to be addressed. Those homes have already been registered and the owners control 3,600 beds, but they cannot get to the Minister to make representations. That is the issue.

Mr. Hanley: Knowing how willing my noble Friend Lord Arran is to meet people throughout the Province, I am very surprised at the hon. Gentleman's statement. I shall readily take up the hon. Gentleman's point with my noble Friend and I am sure that we can arrange a meeting in due course. The representations that we received were not about the registered homes proposal, so they were not specific to the legislation that we are considering tonight.

Mr. Peter Robinson: Does the Minister accept that the Northern Ireland Care Homes Association is operating in the field covered by the order? It recognised deficiencies in the existing regime. It had some knowledge of the changes that were to be made and it wanted to make representations that would have affected the order. The association would like to address the Minister on many issues now and it would still like to meet the Minister. Many issues will be more dependent on the regulations that will ultimately appear as a result of the order. May lye have an undertaking that the Minister will meet the association, which represents 60 per cent. of the beds in their care in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Hanley: I shall certainly pass the comments of the hon. Members for Antrim, North and for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) to my noble Friend Lord Arran and suggest that he does what the hon. Member for Belfast, East asked. As I said, I am surprised that that meeting has not taken place. However, we must remember that the health boards also deserve a meeting with the Northern Ireland Care Homes Association. I hope that they will continue to talk to that association, because that is obviously the way to resolve grievances.
The order will make a significant contribution towards safeguarding the welfare of vulnerable people living in private and voluntary sector homes in Northern Ireland. I believe that the order should be welcomed and I commend it to the House.

Mr. William O'Brien: The order brings registered care homes in Northern Ireland into line with the legislation which applies throughout Great Britain. The Community Care (Residential Accommodation) Act 1992, which began its passage in the other place and which was considered in Standing Committee in this place in June, laid down future plans for community care throughout the United Kingdom. The Government intend the community care reforms to be implemented in full on the same day throughout the United Kingdom next April.
As the Minister said, private care homes have mushroomed throughout Northern Ireland as they have elsewhere in the United Kingdom. As the number of homes has increased, so have the problems. I want to refer to some of those problems and difficulties later.
As I have said, Standing Committee E considered the Community Care (Residential Accommodation) Bill in June and significant and important issues arose from those deliberations which apply to Northern Ireland through the order. They are important and significant because accountability in Northern Ireland in respect of registered homes is almost non-existent.
The need for more accountability is clear from the questions that were put to the Minister. There were references to requests for meetings and observations. The Minister applied the rules and regulations about the consultation period having passed. Therefore, it is a matter of this order or nothing. The Minister made it clear that our only alternative in the House tonight is to vote against the order if we do not accept its terms and conditions.
Paragraph 6 of the order states that the health boards must keep a register and specifies that it is the health boards' responsibility to maintain that register and keep it up to date. The local authorities in England and Wales are the registration authority for sheltered schemes.
Paragraph 29 refers to inspections. It is the health boards' duty to ensure that inspections are carried out and that standards are maintained and, where necessary, improved. In addition to registering and inspecting residential care homes, health boards are also responsible for ensuring that people who do not require medical treatment in hospitals are discharged into nursing homes or residential care homes or into their own homes.
The Minister said that the order also provides that people who can no longer maintain themselves in their own homes would be covered when they move into a registered home, whether in the voluntary sector or otherwise. Therefore, health boards have considerable

interest in the order. It is laid down in the order that health boards can also purchase residential care facilities on behalf of people whom they discharge from hospital.
Health boards have authority to close hospital beds, including geriatric beds, and to discharge patients into the community, some to be cared for by relatives or friends and others to be cared for in private or voluntary residential or nursing homes. The Minister explained that that is part of the function of health boards. It is accepted also by the Minister that health boards purchase care from residential and nursing homes and that they also accept residential and nursing homes for registration. Therefore, to a large extent health boards set the standards which apply in private and voluntary residential and nursing homes. Health boards are responsible for inspecting homes. The Minister pointed out that one of the responsibilities of health boards is to appoint inspectors to monitor conditions in registered homes and the way in which they operate.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I fully agree with what the hon. Gentleman is saying—the health board will be the boss —but what will happen when a health board objects to a care home employing a certain person? We have very strict employment regulations in Northern Ireland, but if a health board says, "You cannot employ that person," and refuses to tell the owner or manager the reasons for that, the manager will be liable if the applicant takes out a case against him under the fair employment legislation.
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the board should take responsibility for refusing to allow the manager to employ a certain applicant? It should not be the responsibility of the home manager to face up to the fair employment legislation; it should be the responsibility of the board which refuses to allow him to employ that person.

Mr. O'Brien: The hon. Gentleman raises a matter to which I intend to refer, because employment in such homes is significant and important. I hope to reveal that health boards are accountable only to the Minister and will direct operations in registered homes. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising the issue.
The Minister mentioned inspections to be carried out by people who are appointed by health boards. Health boards will monitor the quality of services. That is part of their function. They will consider the state of a building and ask, "Is it clean, attractive and well heated?" Families will consider those issues when an elderly parent or a disabled relative seeks residential care. They will ask, "Is the building in a good state of repair? Is it decorated? Is it heated well? Are the rooms single or do people have to double up? Are private toilet facilities available in the bedrooms?" Many issues must be considered.
People will ask, "Are the staff qualified? Are the employment regulations written down and made clear?" I have personal experience of this. Unqualified staff are employed in some homes because lower rates of pay apply to them. There are problems because of the shortage of qualified staff, particularly at night when there is a greater need for the surveillance and care of elderly and chronically sick people.
Health boards are responsible for every aspect of registered homes. They create the need for private homes because they are closing hospital beds, particularly geriatric beds, and they then purchase care from those


homes. They are responsible for the registration and inspection of homes and for the standards of service in them. To a large extent, health boards are responsible for the charges that are set. Therefore, if a home closes because of substandard service or lack of staff, the health board could be responsible for taking care of the people who are discharged.
It is accepted by the Minister that, because of the circumstances in a registered home, a health board might have to take steps to close it down. If it does that, those who are discharged could become the responsibility of the health board. Therefore, health boards will ensure that homes remain open, regardless of the standard of service or the standard of the home. The reason for that is accountability.
In Northern Ireland there is no independent watchdog similar to the health councils in Great Britain, and no local authority committees exercise a watchdog role to supervise the provision of services and the condition of a home and to consider whether residents are happy there, whether they are receiving proper care and attention, and so on. Such accountability does not exist in the draft statutory instrument.

Mr. John D. Taylor: I welcome what the hon. Gentleman is saying. There is absolutely no accountability in Northern Ireland in respect of the control and administration of our nursing homes and residential homes. The health boards are, of course, quangos. The personnel are appointed by the Minister and are answerable to him only. In no way are they answerable to the people of Northern Ireland. We have no say whatever in the health boards or in the way in which they carry out their affairs. I was glad to hear the spokesman for the official Opposition pinpoint that deficiency in public life in Northern Ireland. Should there ever be a Labour Government, will he be prepared to restore to the people of Northern Ireland participation in health boards?

Mr. O'Brien: If the right hon. Gentleman reads the policies on which the Labour party campaigned earlier this year and at other elections, he will see that we believe that there should be accountability and that that accountability should be to the people who are employed in the service and to those who rely on the service. I refer to trade unions and to people who use the services. Accountability is very important if standards are to be maintained and if people are to have the care and protection that the homes should provide. When one authority is the agent for creating the homes, the agent for registering the homes, the agent for maintaining standards, the agent in many instances for setting the fees, and the agent for keeping the homes open, that is a serious problem which the Minister should address.

Mr. Hanley: It would be wrong if we did not recognise that each health and social services board, as part of its "People First" community care changes, has established the registration and inspection unit at arm's length. I must stress that the unit is at arm's length. Therefore, it is totally separated from the management of the board's own homes as well as from the board's contracting departments. There is a Chinese wall, as it were, between the arm's length inspection unit and any of the other departments in the health boards, just as we find in a local council in England.

It would be wrong for anyone to give the impression that the inspection unit will be somehow tainted because of the board's other interests.
There has been talk of there being no accountability. Health and social services councils are doing excellent work in the Province. No doubt they will take a deep interest, as they have traditionally over the years, in the activities of all sorts of home—board homes, voluntary homes and private homes. Therefore, the refusal of some people to recognise that health and social services councils exist and play a valuable role is less than fair.

Mr. O'Brien: I am grateful to the Minister for that intervention. Obviously questions arise from it. Who nominates the people in the arm's length organisation? Who nominates the people who sit on the care councils to which the Minister referred? How many are elected and how many are nominated? Will the Minister give some indication as to how the bodies are set up and to whom they are responsible?

Mr. Hanley: The hon. Gentleman puts a question which I believe I can answer because for the past six months I have been trying to find a way of devolving those responsibilities to the elected representatives within Northern Ireland. We are trying to devolve those responsibilities by agreement with all the parties in Northern Ireland. Until that time, we shall administer fairly the government of Northern Ireland.

Mr. O'Brien: The Minister is now admitting that for six months he has been trying to get representation on these boards—

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. John D. Taylor: I am sure that the spokesman For Her Majesty's Opposition, who is developing the theme in a way which will appeal to us in Northern Ireland, Will agree with me that not only are the health boards appointed by the Minister but that it is dishonest of the Minister to try to give the impression that the health and social services councils are distinct, independent and separate from his administration. Does the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) agree that it is the Minister who appoints also all the members of the health and social services councils and that they are also quangos whose members are yes-men and not answerable to the people of Northern Ireland?

Mr. Hanley: rose—

Mr. O'Brien: I will allow the Minister to answer that point in a moment. First, I want to put another question to him. Is it a fact that over the past few months some members of health boards and of the various councils have been removed because of their views on some issues? Perhaps the Minister will address that point in addition to the point made by the right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor).

Mr. Hanley: The right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) said that all the members of the health and social services councils are yes-men. That is deeply insulting to the dedicated people, many of them district councillors, who work on the health and social services councils. It is extremely unfair to speak in that way of those who carry out that task.
In regard to inspection units, I am intervening to answer points now rather than leave them to the end when some hon. Members may have departed. Standards are governed by subordinate legislation and by guidelines prepared by responsible professional bodies. I am talking about guidelines such as "Home Life" and "Homes are for Living In", which have been published. In addition, the work of the arm's-length inspection units will be monitored. Indeed, they are being monitored by the Department's social services inspectorate and also by the nursing advisory group which I met not long ago. Also, each board has had to establish an advisory committee to provide a link between the units and the public interest.
It would be wrong to try to give the impression that somehow the inspection units are tainted. They are doing and will do valuable work. I should not like confidence in their work to be tainted by any deficiencies which may be commented on in the debate.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. Interventions have been very long. I have allowed them to go on because I thought that it was helpful to the debate. However, I ask hon. Members to bear in mind that interventions are not supposed to be as long as those that we have heard.

Mr. John D. Taylor: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Can you confirm that we have a further five hours available for debate?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is correct.

Mr. O'Brien: The significance of that must be that hon. Members have a great deal to contribute to the debate and that much will be said on the points made by the Minister, particularly about the arm's-length inspectorate. I assure the Minister that no hon. Member would seek to taint the work of the people who are employed by the inspectorate. We are concerned about their terms of reference and the fact that they are responsible to the Department or to the health boards. Obviously they have to work within the terms of reference set by the Department or by the health boards.
It is against that backcloth that I make the point that there should be more accountability and some local input into how the homes are supervised, maintained and inspected. However much the Minister intervenes and tries to explain how the quangos work, every road goes back to the Department or to the health boards. I should like to see that changed and more democracy and accountability introduced. I sense from the issues raised as a result of the Minister's interventions that hon. Members representing Northern Ireland want some accountability for the way in which the order is applied.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the hon. Gentleman take it from me, as an elected representative from Northern Ireland, that I am alarmed at what has happened to a delegation I met? If they raise matters with the board, they and their homes are harassed. One man, who was on the executive of the body, always had a clean bill of health. Immediately he took part in making representations to his Member of Parliament, the board came down on him. Inspectors were sent in and he was told that he was doing everything wrong. One person told me that he was taking no further part because it would place

his home and his livelihood in jeopardy, which demonstrates the massive power of the board. That power must be limited.

Mr. O'Brien: If trade unions representing people employed in homes and services provided by the health boards were allowed to give evidence and to make representations without the fears outlined by the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), we would have a different picture of the case that the Minister has presented for supporting the order.
The Minister should widen the representations. There should be consultation and meetings. We were told that only 13 representations were made during the consultation period. This legislation is important and it will apply to all private and voluntary registered nursing homes in Northern Ireland. Yet when people were asked to make representations there was a lack of response. One reason is that people were afraid of the repercussions, because of their employment or their involvement with the various boards.

Mr. Hanley: I hesitate to intervene again, but I must make it clear that the new legislation will make it easier for home owners to appeal against decisions taken by boards' registration and inspection units, because it will set up a registered homes appeals tribunal, which will benefit from a panel of professional experts who will doubtless build up a body of useful case law. We are establishing a system which will be fairer to home owners.
Lastly—with your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker—the hon. Gentleman mentioned 13 representations. There were 13 on the draft order, but there were more than 100 replies to the broad consultations carried out before the order was drafted. There have been wider consultations and responses.

Mr. O'Brien: What will be the make-up of the appeals tribunals? How will the panel be chosen and what will be the deciding factors? Will the Department or the health boards decide on the arrangements for setting up tribunals? Further accountability is necessary in all the matters that we have mentioned.

Mr. Roy Beggs: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that once an order is published in draft form, there is widespread recognition throughout Northern Ireland that any consultation is a farce and that no further meaningful changes will be made to it? That is why such a small number made further contributions.

Mr. O'Brien: I must bow to the experience and knowledge of local people, because they are nearer to the situation than I. There has been a lack of interest and of co-operation because the people of Northern Ireland fear that when an order is drafted and the purpose of the order is implemented, everything changes. The Minister has outlined certain principles, but it appears that there is a lack of spirit and principle in the Province. I shall allow the Minister to intervene to say that that is not correct. If it is, the Minister ought to join us to demand increased accountability.
The people of Northern Ireland are entitled to better facilities and services. The health boards are accountable to the Minister or to the Department of Health and Social Services, and if changes are to be made or there are any criticisms of the health boards, the Minister should be answerable.
Relatives and friends of people in the homes and the residents have little or no say or influence in services or in the way in which homes are run. In many cases, organisations have been set up within homes to try to improve services and to maintain facilities.
I should like to think that the greater involvement of relatives, friends and residents would result from the legislation. If the Minister believes that that is one way in which services should be provided, perhaps he will assure us that such a facility will be made available.
Hon. Members present in the Chamber who are worried by the lack of support and accountability want the Minister to say that he will take back the statutory instrument and write greater accountability into it.

Sir James Kilfedder: As I have expressed hostility to the Eastern health and social services board in my area on many occasions, and although there has been a friction between me and the Earl of Arran—the Minister responsible for health in another place—I may speak with an independent voice. I would not ask the Minister to take the order back. He said that the elderly are among the most vulnerable in our community and I agree. Their welfare is paramount. If the statutory instrument in any way protects them from unscrupulous owners of residential care homes, I welcome it. It is an improvement on existing legislation. I have made many representations to the Department of Health and Social Services and to the board about homes. I am concerned about the standards imposed in some homes. The order is not perfect, but let us pass it, operate it and then try to get something more perfect still.

Mr. O'Brien: I have no reason to doubt the hon. Member's sincerity about maintaining care accommodation for the elderly and the mentally and physically disabled. If he thinks that the order will improve facilities, I hope that my contribution has pointed out the dangers inherent in the instrument—dangers which could result in a deterioration in facilities and services. Because we have the interests of the most vulnerable people at heart, I ask the Minister to look at the order in detail.
If the hon. Member for North Down (Sir James Kilfedder) has read the order, he will see that paragraph 29 gives almighty power to the health boards. I fear that tomorrow, together with other public expenditure bodies in Northern Ireland, the health boards will find that they have to trim their expenditure. If so, the order will do nothing to improve the services—and hence the lot—of the elderly, sick and disabled in Northern Ireland. If the hon. Gentleman believes otherwise, he is misled, but that is up to him.

Mr. Peter Robinson: I fully concur with the hon. Gentleman's remarks. I should make it abundantly clear that a corpus of law relating to the registration, carrying on and inspection of homes in Northern Ireland is already on the statute book. If we are to make changes, it is far better to get it right and to ensure that orders which we pass in the House have real meaning and effect and do not exacerbate the problems.

Mr. O'Brien: As the Minister said, the order will amend certain laws which now apply to inspections of and applications for homes and how homes are run. It brings Northern Ireland into line with the rest of the United Kingdom and the legislation passed in the House of Lords,

which has gone through the Committee stage of this House. We are now providing facilities for community care in Northern Ireland in line with those in the rest of the United Kingdom. However, the difference between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom is that local authorities have an input into community care in the rest of the United Kingdom which they do not have in Northern Ireland. Against that background, I stress that there are dangers in what we are discussing tonight.
A group called Disability Action, which is an alliance of all the groups in Northern Ireland interested in promoting the rights of disabled people, whom the order covers, has published a commentary on a report drawn up by the policy, planning and research unit—an in-house Government research body set up by various Departments in 1988. Its first report on the prevalence of disability among adults in Northern Ireland says:
The evidence now being published from this Study"—
a study carried out by a body set up by the Government—
commissioned by Government, is a landmark in the development of policies which will address the real issues faced by disabled people in Northern Ireland … The essential message is that the rate of disability among the adult population is 20 per cent. higher than in Britain, between one fifth and one sixth of adults are disabled and that by virtue of living in Northern Ireland a person has a 56 per cent. greater chance of being disabled than someone living in Britain. It argues that these facts put disability at the heart of social and economic policy debate in Northern Ireland. Disability is in a real sense, an essential measure of the state of Northern Irish Society and should be treated as such.
I do not know whether Disability Action was on the list of those who contributed to the consultation procedure. If not, the document should be given careful consideration. It says:
There is a very close link between disability and ageing; the older someone is, the more likely they are to be disabled." Therefore, the crux of what we are discussing today is covered by that document, published by a voluntary body which cares for disabled people in Northern Ireland. The fact that it cares for the disabled means that it also cares for the elderly.

Mr. Beggs: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, in view of the high incidence of disability in Northern Ireland, any Government proposal to tax disability living allowance would have disastrous effects in Northern Ireland?

Mr. O'Brien: We must accept the hon. Gentleman's point. The observations that I have made are not mine but those of people from Northern Ireland who have their finger on the pulse when it comes to disabled and old people. The order will cater for the disabled and elderly, so if we do not get it right, those vulnerable people will suffer most. It is accepted that people in Northern Ireland need such an order more than those in the United Kingdom. It is therefore important that the debate should highlight those issues and that the Minister should note that the order needs to be looked at further.
The report goes on to say:
there are proportionately more disabled people in Northern Ireland than in Britain and this holds true for every age group and every severity category.
Although we speak of homes for the elderly and disabled, people in every age group should be considered in this debate. The report says:


The only conclusion which can be reached from this evidence is that a substantially higher proportion of adults under pensionable age are disabled than might be expected if experience in Britain is taken as the norm.
It is accepted in Northern Ireland that that is a fact, so the order should deal with that. The document also says:
There is growing concern that while there is legislation to divert money from Social Security to the Health Boards to help pay for services for people who might otherwise end up in an institution, no decisions have been made yet on how much money will be available or how it will be calculated. This is despite the fact that the new system should be in place by next April, only 10 months away"—
it was only 10 months away when this document was published—
With this level of uncertainty over money, planning becomes a virtual impossibility.
Not only are elected Members saying that the matter should be watched carefully, but organisations which cater for the most vulnerable in Northern Ireland are saying that we need more information about how and where resources will be applied once a decision has been taken. I hope that I am wrong to predict that, tomorrow, that document will be intensified by the Chancellor's autumn statement. Because of what I have outlined in my contribution and the lack of accountability, we intend to oppose the order today.

Mr. Peter Robinson: I shall not attempt to take advantage of the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, who has a semi-detached relationship with the Department for which he speaks and for which he is answering today. However, having listened to the apologia that he was asked to present to the House, I found it refreshing to listen to the studied consideration of the order presented by the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien). He made a most helpful contribution, and I shall attempt to avoid simply endorsing and duplicating the issues that he raised. Instead, I shall try to deal with some of the other matters dealt with in the order.
It is fortuitous that the forces that came into play in unforeseen circumstances earlier today have allowed the order to be given considerable attention when it might otherwise have received only scant consideration of about 90 minutes after 10 pm. I am not sure whether the Minister is as pleased about that prospect as hon. Members from Northern Ireland. I think that he is finding it difficult to keep up the show of delight on his face. However, circumstances have given us an opportunity to debate the order in greater detail.
The Department received 13 communications during the consultation process. The association to which a number of colleagues and I have referred, and which represents 60 per cent. of the care beds in Northern Ireland, did not exist in its present form when the letters seeking consultations were sent out. One of the 13 communications that the Minister received was from someone who is now that association's executive officer. Although 13 replies may not seem very many, they represent the substantial majority of carers in private sector nursing homes in Northern Ireland. The Minister will appreciate that there is a need to allow small, private and voluntary homes in Northern Ireland to have the same opportunities as both statutory homes and the one or two major private nursing homes.
The most unusual and perhaps most dangerous part of the order is contained in schedule 1, which seeks to introduce a new article—article 14A—into the Health and Personal Social Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1972. That appears to be a radical departure from normal Government procedures and practices.
Section 14A(2) allows the Department to
assist any body or person carrying out any arrangements under paragraph (1)",
which states:
The Department may make arrangements for the provision by any other body or person of any of the health services on such terms and conditions as may be agreed between the Department and that other body or person.
It is not clear from the drafting—perhaps the Minister will clarify this when he replies—whether that provision will operate on a commercial, voluntary, gift or preferential basis. I do not know, and cannot determine from the legislation, whether open tendering is to be the order of the day. I believe that many in Northern Ireland will suspect that the Department may have made arrangements with large care providers, of which there are two in Northern Ireland, to give them some form of preferential treatment. Alternatively, the Department may have already entered into arrangements with those major carers in Northern Ireland to give them some care provision.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Does not the order give power to the board to hand over properties to its chosen people? In fact, does it not give the board power to hand over the properties without asking for payment?

Mr. Robinson: My hon. Friend is correct. I think that it is article 14 of the order that allows the Department to give away its own premises. It does not state the basis on which that might occur. It also allows the Department to make available to anybody the vehicles, equipment and materials as well as the services of any of the staff employed at the premises.
The order needs further clarification by the Minister, and I am delighted that he will have an opportunity to do so. However, it is suspected that the order will allow unfair commercial advantage to anyone who receives favourable treatment from a Government Department. Such treatment may well be in contravention of the European economic treaty and may show that, within the context of Northern Ireland, the Government are prepared to give preferential treatment to national or local organisations. When he responds, will the Minister assure us that the Department will make commercial open tendering an important aspect of care provision in Northern Ireland?
Article 15 of the order follows on from the main provisions contained in article 14. It appears that the Government may even dispense with public property—certainly its use—for nothing, a negligible amount or whatever charge they think fit without reference to the considerations of either the public or the Exchequer. How much accountability will there be within that process? What overall controls will be applied on the execution of the order?

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: The hon. Gentleman raised an issue that I want to refer to later. Is not article 15 of the order a sneaky way of overcoming the legal difficulties in which the Government found themselves in relation to social services? If article 15 is read in conjunction with the 1972 order, the Government will be able to create social service trusts. The order, which


refers to registered homes, appears to be a misnomer as it relates to the setting up of trusts, despite the fact that Lord Arran promised separate legislation to set up trusts.

Mr. Robinson: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point and I shall listen to his contribution with great interest if he is called to speak later. The matter is of particular concern to those in Northern Ireland, which does not have the degree of control and accountability that exists elsewhere in the United Kingdom.
The new article 50 increases the inspection powers of the Department's inspection unit. May I make it abundantly clear that no hon. Member is suggesting that the standard of inspection or care should be reduced, or that the degree of accountability in the system should be removed. Everyone wants the highest standards in Northern Ireland, and I shall later outline the distinctions and comparisons between the inspection levels in Northern Ireland and those elsewhere in the United Kingdom. Nobody is suggesting that we should stop inspections or make it easier for unscrupulous people to get away with an unsatisfactory standard of care.
The Department has set up an inspection system, and proposed another one. The association to which I referred has a natural desire to ensure that it admits only those who provide the best care and attention. Article 50 increases inspection powers and 50(2)(a) states that an inspector may
make such examination into the state and management of the premises and the services provided therein as he thinks fit;".
Inspections should be limited to matters that are relevant to the health and welfare of patients. The legislation should not be drafted in wide terms that will allow the examination of accounts, business practices and confidential information. That may well be an invasion of privacy even under the Data Protection Act 1988.
Article 50(2)(b) gives the power to
inspect any records (in whatever form they are held) relating to the premises, or any person for whom services have been or are to be provided there;".
That is also an unwarranted invasion of the privacy of residents in those homes. Medical and personal records are private and should not be made available to any person who is not medically competent or qualified or properly authorised to inspect them.

Sir James Kilfedder: I have many residential care homes in my constituency, but I have not received any of the criticisms mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. From whom did he get those criticisms, and has he expressed them to the Secretary of State for Health?

Mr. Robinson: If we were to have a competition—

Sir James Kilfedder: The hon. Gentleman has spoken about dangers in the order. I heard at the weekend from a friend who owns a residential care home, but I have not heard from anyone else or from the association to which the hon. Gentleman refers. Has the hon. Gentleman made representations to the Secretary of State for Health? When did he receive representations from the Northern Ireland Care Homes Association?

Mr. Robinson: I would be delighted to respond to all those questions. If there were a competition to see which Northern Ireland constituency has the most nursing and residential home beds, my constituency by far would take

the prize. Over many months I have spoken to the owners of those homes who are greatly concerned about how the Department is currently operating.
As I said earlier, the association to which I refer was not formed when the Department called for various issues to be clarified and for presentations. Representatives of the association came to the House today and it is only within the past few hours that a number of hon. Members were alerted to the concerns. I assure the hon. Member for North Down (Sir J. Kilfedder) that if many of us had had the details that we now have we would have been pounding on the door of the elusive and noble Lord who has refused thus far to meet representatives of that association.
Article 50(2)(c) states that an inspector may
require the owner of, or any person employed in, the premises to furnish him with such information as he may request.
That is another wide provision. The Minister should say that it must be construed that the information can only be that which is "reasonably required" that is covered by such a provision.
Article 16 defines a nursing home. Why are children's homes, which are covered by the Children and Young Persons Act 1969, not to be included? It is improper and unfair to exclude either voluntary homes or homes covered by that Act. Children and young people have every right to live in premises that are every bit as comfortable and well maintained as a private sector home. The best way to do that is to keep those children and young people within the same inspection and regulation system that governs the private sector.
Article 16(2)(b) states that exemption from the legislation will apply to
any premises managed or provided by a government department, a Board, an HSS trust, or by any other body constituted by a statutory provision or incorporated by Royal Charter".
There is no logical reason for that: they should be treated in exactly the same way as private sector premises.
Under the order, any property owned by the board does not have to be inspected or registered. That will lead to a rapid deterioration in all the services therein. Refusing to grant the children and young people of Northern Ireland the benefits and protection of an independent inspectorate and placing them in a regime where they will not be adequately and properly inspected means that they will not be adequately protected. The order should be changed o take account of that.
Article 25 covers representations to the tribunals about which the Minister spoke in such glowing terms. I think that article 14 covers the tribunals. The wording may give a false impression and perhaps the Minister can allay any fears. Owners of homes are worried that they will have to make oral or written representation in person. Will they have the right to be represented legally or in some other way at the tribunals?
Article 25 allows the board to give a home owner the opportunity to state his case. The Minister will appreciate that many owners will think that they are not the best people to present a case. They should have every opportunity within the law to be represented by solicitors or barristers. As the regulations are not available to us, we cannot determine the basis upon which the tribunal may sit and the procedures that it may adopt.
I said earlier that I would comment upon the comparison between inspections in Northern Ireland and those elsewhere in the United Kingdom. There seems to be


a feeling that in some way inspections in Northern Ireland are of a lower standard than those that pertain elsewhere. That is not true. I shall provide some figures for the House which will help our consideration and allay any worries, and, when the Minister is persuaded, as I have no doubt he will be, not to press the order but to take it away there will be adequate inspection in Northern Ireland.
I understand that the inspectorate in Northern Ireland is three or four times the size of the inspectorate in Great Britain. One inspector in Great Britain with whom the association has had discussions looks after about 63 homes and works part-time for two days a week. The Southern board has about 84 homes, four inspectors, a unit manager and a secretariat. As one might imagine, homes in Northern Ireland are closer together and much easier to reach. I do not know exactly how many homes are in the Eastern board area—there are probably about 200—and that board has about 12 inspectors. Therefore, Northern Ireland has a much higher inspection rate than elsewhere in the United Kingdom.
Perhaps the Minister will confirm that much of the legislation is directed at making the provision self-financing and that, consequently, the cost of the inspectorate will be passed to the home owners. If that is the case, there will be a substantial difference between the cost applied in Great Britain and that applied in Northern Ireland. Because it will be significantly greater in Northern Ireland, it could make a difference when it comes to the viability of homes, and therefore make the situation even worse.
I am grateful for the patience of the Minister and the House, and I trust that the Minister will be able to respond to those points. I hope that the many other matters that will relate directly to the regulations that will flow from this legislation will be matters that the Minister and the Department will be prepared to go into in great detail with the association representing the majority of the homes in Northern Ireland so that they can deal with any misunderstandings and take into consideration any changes that the association might wish to be made.

Mr. John D. Taylor: The matter before the House is the care of the elderly in Northern Ireland. The hon. Member for North Down (Sir J. Kilfedder) hit the nail on the head when he said that there was little that was more important than that. We have many facilities for caring for the elderly in Northern Ireland, including private homes, the residential nursing homes that are the subject of the order, homes provided by public authorities such as the Eastern health and social services board and private homes such as the Sandown homes, which provide an excellent service across the Province.
We also have homes provided by the Churches—I am thinking here of the excellent residential unit, appropriately named Taylor court, run by the Baptist church in Belvoir in my constituency. Other homes are organised by local authorities—for example, Mount Alexander at Comber, Loch Cuan house in Newtonards and Northfield house in Donaghadee. Housing associations also provide excellent facilities for the elderly.
Whether it is through the public service, the Churches, the voluntary organisations, private enterprise or local

authorities, Northern Ireland provides well for the elderly. However, there is a growing problem, because, as with the rest of the United Kingdom, the demographic trend means that there will be a greater need, year by year, to provide for the ever-increasing section of our community that can be described as "elderly".
Normally, debates on Orders in Council last for 90 minutes. The Minister is lucky this evening because he has managed to get five or six hours for the debate. That is an unusual experience for Members representing Northern Ireland because, for once, we have time to speak about something that affects our people. However, the Minister looked like a guilty man—he had guilt written from one ear to the other. I rather suspected that he was upset that he was not able to push through the order in 90 minutes. He was horrified that he had to take on board and present a proposal which would be debated for five hours and to which there would be opposition from all parts of the House.
The Minister has mentioned various organisations, which have already been dealt with by the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien), whose speech I commend because he articulated the concerns of the ordinary people of Northern Ireland, concerns with which the Minister could not identify. The Minister simply identified himself with a system of government that is repugnant to the people of Northern Ireland and that we reject.
The Minister spoke about health boards and the health and social services councils. At one stage, he said that the role of the boards was similar to that of councils in England. That is nonsense. The councils in England are elected by the people of England. The boards in Northern Ireland are appointed by the Minister and are not responsible to the people of Northern Ireland. That is the difference between the administration of health and social services in Northern Ireland and in England. That is why the Minister is guilty.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Anglo-Irish conference in Dublin can put forward names of people to serve on the boards? Therefore, people are nominated to the boards by the Minister and by Dublin, through the Anglo-Irish Agreement, which the Secretary of State was trying to tell us is a good thing.

Mr. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman is correct. That is another reason why the Minister is a guilty man.
The boards are hand-picked by the Minister, after consultation with the Dublin Government, but with no consultation of the people of Northern Ireland. They are quangos. They are part of a dictatorship in which we have no say. The Minister unashamedly declared that only 13 representations had been made during the consultation period, but that is only the result of the evil system of government in Northern Ireland, which the Minister represents. People did not make representations to the Minister, because they knew that, apart from a few minor recommendations, they would be ignored and the Minister would come to the House with an Order in Council, which would be pushed through in 90 minutes.
Earlier, when asked a question, the Minister spoke in reply but did not answer. The question was whether Members representing constituencies in England, Scotland, Wales or even Northern Ireland—more so Northern Ireland in the context of tonight's debate—could amend an Order in Council. The answer is that they


cannot. Because we cannot amend the Order in Council, people do not take part in the consultation process. They know that, even if they make representations, they will be automatically ignored by a dictatorial Minister, who will then introduce an Order in Council that cannot be amended and that goes through on the nod.
The Minister spoke of the wonderful part played by the health and social services boards. Throughout Northern Ireland, they are known as a joke. Members of boards are hand-picked by the Minister. They are his stooges. They have no respect in the community. Anyone who stands up against the Minister and the Department has his knuckles rapped and he then resigns, as happened with a constituent of mine. Sir Edward Archdale had to resign because he did not want to be a yes-man for this Northern Ireland administration, which operates as a dictatorship through the health and social services boards.
As the hon. Member for Normanton said, the Government are not answerable to the people of Northern Ireland. This is the seventh anniversary of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, which was signed in 1985. We have had that deadlock for seven years, and the Minister represents that evil system of government in which we are ruled by quangos and which the people deeply resent.
The quango in my area, the Eastern health and social services board, which operates in the council area of North Down, Ards and Castlereagh, is intent on closing most of the hospitals. North Down and Ards together cover the most rapidly growing population in Northern Ireland. The Minister praised that board, so I must respond to him. It operates in an area where 80 per cent. of the people are Protestant, but 65 per cent. of its employees are Roman Catholic. The Minister refuses to hear anything about the underemployment of Protestants and the discrimination against them by that board. I must raise those subjects, because the Minister referred to the health boards and their role in the supervision of homes.
I am sorry to have to make those points, but it is important that the nonsense of Orders in Council being presented to the House is exposed and that the British people should know that we in Northern Ireland are coming to the end of our tether and will not accept democracy as it is presented by the Minister. We rebel against it. We reject it. The time has come for a change in Northern Ireland, where, as the hon. Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara) has said, in matters of health and social services the administration should he answerable to the people. That is what we must have. Only when we do can we approve orders of this nature. That is why we shall join Her Majesty's Opposition in opposing the motion tonight.

Mr. Eddie McGrady: I am grateful for the opportunity to participate in tonight's debate. In the interests of the inhabitants of residential homes, be they care or nursing homes, and given the problems and concerns of home owners, I intend to deal exclusively with the order. I do not intend to make political points.
The Minister referred to consultation, and it may be that he did not have to hand the information to deal adequately with the questions that were put to him about the number of responses received. However, if he would care to look at it, I have with me ministerial

correspondence regarding the draft order. The inflection in the Minister's voice when he referred to the 13 responses suggested criticism.
That contradicts the Minister's explanatory document, item 4(c) of which stated that the recent consultative exercise in Northern Ireland invoked widespread support for the new legislation. That widespread support is not particularly evident tonight, nor is it particularly evident among those to whom I speak in Northern Ireland. However, the document might be referring to a different set of people altogether, with whom we are not acquainted. The consultation was early and adequate, but little cognisance was taken of the recommendations and suggestions that would have improved the order.
None of us can pretend that our contribution tonight will change the order one iota. Therefore, we must bend the Minister's mind to its consequences. I emphasise that we are all aware that of paramount importance is the quality of life for the inhabitants of the residential care and nursing homes—the old, the sick, the infirm, the mentally disabled, alcoholics and drug addicts. Those are the people with whom we must all be primarily concerned. What I say must be taken in the context of that overriding consideration. Nothing that I say tonight must in any way detract from or diminish the quality of provision and care that the less fortunate in our community, those who are disabled in the ways that I described, should have.
The order is important, because of the current transition in Northern Ireland from the statutory provision of residential care to its provision by the private and voluntary sector. That is endemic in my constituency, and I note the remarks made by the right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) in the same context.
Within a small area, three statutory homes have recently been closed. When I pointed out to the Minister responsible that one of them, Morne house in Newcastle, had been closed, he was shocked and surprised. Such homes cannot be closed without his authority and imprimatur, but he did not know that it had been closed. That is the extent of the Eastern board's authority, and the same is true of the Northern, Southern and Western boards.
They all have an almost dictatorial attitude towards closing homes by stealth. They create the atmosphere that something will be closed and, before a month is out, people who cannot fend properly for themselves cannot obtain the right advice or seek accommodation elsewhere, the residential role diminishes and it becomes a self-fulfilling activity. I have seen it, I despise it and I hope that the Minister will intervene and stop such action by not only the Eastern health and social services board but the Northern, Southern and Western boards.
I am in favour of the principle of patient choice in private and statutory accommodation. However, we are in a transitional period—

Rev. Ian Paisley: The hon. Gentleman knows something about the closing of the homes. He will be aware that board members told residents in the homes that were to be closed and their relations that, if the residents did not go into a certain home quickly, it might fill up and they would have to move perhaps 20 miles away. Therefore, instead of a proper choice, there was no choice at all because only one home was available. Surely that does away with an individual's personal choice.

Mr. McCrady: I thank the hon. Gentleman. That is the very point that I was trying to bring out. The very activity that he describes has occurred on several occasions. I have described it as an unacceptable way for any board to act. As a consequence of that activity, choice is diminishing week by week and month by month. It is the consequence not so much of board policy as of departmental policy —the so-called care in the community regime. More importantly, it is the consequence of the shortfall in funding which has befallen the health boards and which they are about to experience even more drastically. The Eastern health and social services board, to which the right hon. Member for Strangford referred, faces a shortfall of £20 million in the next tranche.
Those of us who are familiar with the new private homes in our constituencies will readily accept that they have a high standard of provision. As far as a lay person can see, they provide a high standard of care and nursing. According to rumour, many of those private and voluntary homes, which are superior to the statutory homes but were built 10, 15 or 20 years ago, will be required under new regulations to make considerable improvements to bring them up to the standards required by the new regime. That is acceptable on the basis that there is full consultation and that financial assistance is available to assist the transition.
The subject of consultation has been much discussed this evening. Would it not have been more appropriate for the Department, rather than sitting in the ivory tower of Stormont, to write asking the registered homes for their opinion of the order? After all, Government Departments are very good at writing letters, or at least sending out circulars: I receive a good many, most of which are consigned to the waste paper basket. Surely that would be more positive than sitting back and saying, "No one told us what they wanted."
One of the order's main defects is not what is contained in it but what it empowers the Department and the Minister to do following its passing. Built into almost every part of it are virtually open-ended powers to make further regulation in regard to inspection, registration or tribunals. The Minister spoke in his opening speech of a requirement for detailed and substantial regulations to be made; but they have not been made, so we cannot debate them tonight. Moreover, once they have been formulated and published, we shall have very little control over them.
Let me sum up my point about consultation. I think that the Government should ask the Northern Ireland Care Homes Association—and the voluntary and private sector homes that do not belong to that association—to help in the preparation of rules and regulations that will benefit both residents and owners. That, surely, is the best way forward.
The order has some extraordinary features. The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) mentioned the exclusion of children's and young persons' homes. Given recent history both in this country and in Northern Ireland, I feel that that sector should be brought within the scope of the order. The Minister may say that it is dealt with in other legislation; if so, I hope that he will undertake to review and update that legislation, because it clearly is not working properly.
As others have pointed out, it is inexplicable that health and social services trust homes and homes governed by chartered bodies or statutory boards have been excluded from the inspection provisions. According to a one-liner in

article 3(2)(g), the board can exclude any establishment that it wishes to exclude. That drives a horse and cart through the legislation. Under article 4(4), small homes are excluded in certain circumstances; but no one seems to have decided how a small home should be defined. Certainly, the Minister did not do so in his opening speech. How small is small, and how big is big? The conditions governing registration, refusal to register and the cancellation of registration are not at all clear. Moreover, they are subject to further rules and regulations which I understand are to be published a month after the order comes into effect.

Mr. Peter Robinson: Could that not betray a slip on the part of the Department? Effectively, the order is a charter for the boards to give away all their homes; the Department, and the boards, may well intend to end up with no homes at all, so that they need not include them in legislation. They may intend to give them away, either to the big operators or to someone else.

Mr. McGrady: Indeed. I think that the hon. Gentleman drew our attention to that possibility earlier when he referred to the provision in article 14A under schedule I, which empowers the Department to hand over premises, property, fixtures and fittings to another person's custody and usage. If the boards were to use that vehicle, they could rapidly denude themselves of all their homes—and, given the budgetary restraints that will have been imposed on them, that is very likely. The intention is for homes affected by the provision to be transferred to more or less recognised charities such as Help the Aged, but that will not necessarily happen. It could be argued that such organisations are not equipped to deal with the administration involved.
The implementation of the inspection provisions is also in doubt. The order tells us nothing about how inspections will be carried out. It mentions self-financing, but I do not know whether that phrase is used in the context of the United Kingdom, Northern Ireland or the boards. Standards are not mentioned either. Presumably, they will he the subject of yet another series of regulations, to be published after the order has been passed. Nevertheless, the question of standards of medical care, staffing, buildings, equipment and the general ambience of homes is problematic. Both the boards and home owners should be consulted, so that common standards can be agreed and applied to everyone's benefit, not least that of residents.
I am bothered by what is not in the order, rather than by what it contains. We know the mechanics: the motion will be passed, and no passage, phrase or word in the order will be changed. It is a fait accompli. Let me make a special plea to the Minister: that he will not publish a series of regulations about registration, inspection and tribunals until he has engaged in full consultation with the people and the boards concerned in what, for want of a better word, we must call an industry—an industry that cares for the aged, the sick, the mentally ill, the infirm and the addicted. That is the proper way in which to protect the interests of the less able and favoured members of society —interests which we should have most at heart—and also to protect those who provide the premises in which such people are cared for.

Mr. David Trimble: Let me begin—as did my right hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor)—by complimenting the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) on his speech. Unfortunately, he is not in the Chamber now, but his useful contribution dealt with a number of serious issues.
Before I deal with the details of the order, I must, as always, register a protest at the way in which the legislation is being introduced. As is usual with Northern Ireland legislation, this is being done by Order in Council. As the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) said earlier, Orders in Council are usually debated for 90 minutes. Tonight, because of the collapse of business earlier in the day, we have more time. Had we been proceeding according to the normal amount of time allotted to orders, the debate would have ended nearly half an hour ago, in which case I should have been unable to speak. There is some small mercy, therefore, in the collapse of the earlier proceedings. However, the collapse of the earlier proceedings and the fact that the order is being debated earlier than expected has caused embarrassment to at least one of my hon. Friends.

Mr. John D. Taylor: He is in very good company.

Mr. Trimble: He is indeed.
As other hon. Members have mentioned, the collapse of the previous business means that we have five and a half hours in which to debate the order, but it does not matter whether we take five minutes, five hours or 50 hours, because nothing that we say tonight will have any effect. The order is unamendable: whatever the Minister may say in his wind-up speech, the order will go through virtually on the nod. It is a form of law-making that is indefensible.

Mr. Beggs: And offensive.

Mr. Trimble: And offensive, as my hon. Friend says.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has noticed that, according to the Order Paper today, the business managers of the House thought that the first business would go beyond 10 o'clock, for there is a 10 o'clock motion on the Order Paper, so we should have had one and a half hours—perhaps from 11.30 onwards, because the first business could have gone on for another hour and a half at least. The point is that this issue, which is so vital and which needed time, might not have been debated at all tonight due to lack of time.

Mr. Trimble: The hon. Gentleman is correct. When I saw the 10 o'clock motion on the Order Paper this morning, my heart sank. I thought that it meant that our business would not come on until the small hours of the morning. Instead, it has come on a little earlier than expected.
The Minister was on the Treasury Bench when we discussed the first business on the Order Paper. I think that he heard me comment that the Bill that we were then debating extended to Northern Ireland and contained substantive Northern Ireland provisions in primary legislation. I notice that the explanatory document relating to the order states that this order brings Northern Ireland legislation into line with legislation in this matter in England and Wales—the Registered Homes Act 1984 and the Registered Homes (Amendment) Act 1991.
It ought surely to have been possible, at least with regard to the 1991 Act, to take the same course as was taken earlier today on the Maintenance Orders (Reciprocal Enforcement) Bill—that is, to have included the equivalent legislation in the 1991 Bill when it was going through the House. We could then have had it a year earlier. We have had to wait at least a year—perhaps longer when it comes to some aspects—for this order. There is no reason why Northern Ireland legislation should not be included in the English equivalent when it is going through the House. There is no technical reason why that cannot be done. It would have the added advantage of enabling a more serious and more purposeful debate to take place. Moreover, more interest might be taken in the legislative process if things were done that way.
In reply to an intervention during his speech, the Minister said that only 13 representations had been made during the consultation period and that none of them was made by political parties. The Minister shot himself in the foot in a massive way by saying that, because the interventions of other hon. Members made it clear that considerable representations had been made by various parties and that the Minister involved, who is represented tonight by the Minister on the Treasury Bench, had on occasions declined to see people.
As the Labour party spokesman, the hon. Member for Normanton, said tonight, there is a tremendous absence of accountability in Northern Ireland: it is non-existent there. That is absolutely correct. My right hon. Friend the Member for Strangford has made the point absolutely clear with regard to boards and councils appointed by the Minister. All the new health and social services boards are appointed by the Minister. The health and social services councils are also appointed by him. There may be the odd elected representative on a council, but that person owes his place to the Minister's favour. He is swamped by the Minister's nominees, who are drawn from a remarkably narrow segment of social and public opinion within Northern Ireland.
It may be a little better with quangos. Quangos are objectionable in themselves, but things would be a little better if the appointments made by Ministers to quangos in some way represented the community as a whole, instead of taking people from a narrow social band—largely from the hangers-on to the Stormont castle system: persons who generally have no roots in that society and who cannot be regarded as representing the community at large, let alone identified political groupings.
It is extremely rare for any person who is in any way connected with the political party that I represent ever to be apointed to a quango. If one or two slip through and are appointed, it is usually a sign that that person suffers from some moral or other defect.

Mr. Beggs: I am aware of an elected Unionist councillor who serves on one of the most recently established quangos. I am sure that my hon. Friend agrees with that councillor's observation—that the chairman was tame and had been selected purely and simply because he would never vote or allow members of that council to raise any controversial matter.

Mr. Trimble: That is right. I am grateful for my hon. Friend's intervention. It echoes the point made earlier by my right hon. Friend the Member for Strangford who referred to the experience of one of his councillors, Sir


Edward Archdale, who found the situation so intolerable that he resigned. I did not intend my earlier comments to be interpreted as meaning that the limited number of councillors who are appointed to the boards are persons who are not struggling against the system. Some of the councillors who have been appointed were appointed because they were malleable. Others are not so malleable. Lest there be any misunderstanding about this, my comments were directed towards the non-elected representatives—the vast number of persons who are appointed.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. Before the hon. Gentleman continues with his speech, I should say that although I am trying to follow his argument as best I can, it seems to be straying rather far from the subject of registered homes.

Mr. Trimble: Registered homes are supervised, Madam Deputy Speaker, by health and social services boards, to which health and social services councillors are supposed to give advice. Consequently, the constitution of the health and social services boards is, I suggest, a matter that one can touch on, since it relates also to the greater problem of the complete absence of accountability within the public service in Northern Ireland. That is a matter of great and general importance.
As the explanatory document says, there has been a tremendous increase in the number of residential and nursing homes in Northern Ireland in recent years. Many of those residential and nursing homes are admirable and provide a good service. However, there have been exceptions. Some have given cause for concern. On a number of occasions I have had communications with the Minister regarding homes. In some cases, I have even had to ask for inspections to be carried out.
In general, I would welcome a measure which provided for registration and greater regulation. In broad principle, we welcome registration, regulation and inspection. My right hon. Friend the Member for Strangford said that because of the way in which the legislation is being enacted we shall vote against the order, but that should not be interpreted as rejection of a system which would lead to better regulation and control of this sector. We welcome the principle of greater control and supervision.
I am worried about the extent of that control. The grounds for refusal of registration relate to the character of the applicant and the nature of the premises—their physical condition, equipment, and so on. Another ground for refusal is
that the way in which it is intended to carry on the home is such as not to provide services or facilities reasonably required.
The grounds for refusal are set out in article 8(1). The refusal of registration provides a degree of control.
The order contains nothing further about the way in which it is intended to carry on the home being such as not to provide services or facilities reasonably required. It would have been helpful if regulations had been provided. Under article 28, the Department is given the power to make regulations on several matters. Some of the matters with which the regulations may deal are set out in the Bill. They include facilities, numbers of staff, the number of

staff to be on duty at any time, the information given to residents about complaints procedures, and notification of events which occur in the home.
I am worried about the range of matters that will be covered by the regulations. I may be wrong, but it seems to me that the matters covered by regulations will provide the basis for detailed control through inspection, refusal or withdrawal, or registration. If the regulations do not cover a certain matter, it may slip out of the net. I am thinking of simple complaints such as those that I have received from persons in homes that they were deprived of pocket money. Will it be possible to take such matters into account in an inspection? The order does not refer to small matters of that nature. We should like to know what matters the regulations will cover.
The hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) complained about the extent of the power to make regulations. That reminds me of a debate that we had last week on the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Bill. Important asylum and immigration matters were to be covered in regulations. For that debate, the Home Office made available draft regulations so that, when we discussed that Bill, we had the draft regulations in front of us and hon. Members were able to talk about them. That resulted in a sensible debate on the Bill. Where are the draft regulations to be made under the order? Why is the procedure followed last week not adopted for Northern Ireland legislation? Why do we not have the regulations before us when so much of the meat of the legislation will be in the form of regulations?
I suggest that, in future proceedings, the Minister and his officials take account of the need to ensure that the House has sufficient information before it in the debate to make an effective judgment. If we had draft regulations on the conduct of residential care and nursing homes, we would be able to comment more about the extent of regulation and the Department's control which may be exercised.
It has been said that the regulations will be published shortly. However, when the regulations are published they will not be subject to any effective parliamentary control; they do not come before the House. There is no practical way in which such regulations can be brought before the House. That is another defect of the procedure for Northern Ireland legislation.
Linked to the power to carry out inspections are the regulations which lay down the conduct for residential homes. That is a key matter. I welcome a power of inspection. It is necessary. Again, important matters in article 29, which provides for inspection, will be dealt with in regulations. I deprecate that. Reference has been made to some of the provisions in schedule 1 and a new article 50, which is to be inserted by schedule 1(7) into the Health and Personal Social Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1972. That new article 50 provides powers of inspection. The article says:
Any person authorised by the Department may at any reasonable time enter and inspect any premises (other than premises in respect of which any person is registered under the Registered Homes (Northern Ireland) Order 1992)".
That relates to premises which are not registered. There is a need for such a power to ensure that a home which should be registered is covered by the legislation and the regulations so that it may be inspected. That is a good provision.
The new article 50(4) refers to the way in which the inspection is carried out. It caught my attention as a good provision. New article 50(4) says:
Any person inspecting any premises under this Article—(a) may interview any person residing there in private"—
There must be an express power to speak to residents in private. Elderly people in residential homes are sometimes nervous about their circumstances and feel vulnerable to the management of the home. They may feel worried and afraid. Perhaps their fears are groundless. It is easy for elderly people to be worried about the future. When homes are perhaps not run as well as they could be, the residents may be afraid to complain. I have had experience of that when complaints have reached me in my capacity as Member of Parliament.
I would be delighted if a similar provision for the inspection of registered homes were inserted in new article 50(4). It is a small point, but effective inspection is necessary and important. The power to inspect may be abused. The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) referred to a way in which the power to inspect had been abused. Such abuse is not a reflection on the regulatory system provided; it is a reflection on the character of the boards and the way in which they have developed, free from any accountability, parliamentary control or supervision.
I shall mention a few other matters. The legislation provides an emergency procedure. That is good, but I wish to query one aspect. Under the emergency procedure a board may apply to a justice of the peace for an order cancelling registration. If the justice of the peace thinks that there will be a serious risk to the life, health or well-being of the residents, he may make the order.
The order also contains an appeal provision. Presumably, the appeal provision is intended to be a hurdle or filter to ensure that a board does not act capriciously, that it has some grounds and that those grounds are examined by another person. That provision may appear reasonable to a person who is not from Northern Ireland. Here in England, justices of the peace have judicial functions. They are magistrates. They appear on magistrates' benches and discharge an important range of civil and criminal business, so they are persons accustomed to acting in a judicial manner and having an important judicial function to discharge. That has not been the case in Northern Ireland since 1935. Ever since then, all the functions that people think of as being discharged by magistrates have been discharged by a professional judiciary—people who in England and Wales would be stipendiary magistrates.
The post of justice of the peace continues in Northern Ireland, but it is an honorific title, given to worthy chaps, and their function is simply to sign warrants occasionally—

Mr. John D. Taylor: And passport applications.

Mr. Trimble: Yes, passport applications and other such matters.

Rev. Ian Paisley: And election returns.

Mr. John D. Taylor: Except in West Belfast.

Mr. Trimble: The comments being made underline the fact that a justice of the peace in Northern Ireland has no significant judicial functions. It is eccentric to put our justices of the peace in the position of having to decide

whether to close a residential or nursing home immediately, with all the implications involved for the person carrying on the business and the people employed in it. Why was it not thought proper, or possible, for the applications to be made to resident magistrates? That would be the equivalent—the sensible thing to do. When the Minister replies to the debate, will he deal with that question? Yes, let us have an emergency procedure, but let us have a sensible procedure.

Mr. William Ross:: As the order is supposed to apply the 1984 Act to Northern Ireland, does my hon. Friend not consider it highly possible that the draftsmen did a straight lift, without realising that the provision was not applicable in Northern Ireland conditions?

Mr. Trimble: When it comes to the origins of the drafting of legislation, anything is possible, especially in view of the fact that the Maintenance Orders (Reciprocal Enforcement) Bill, which went through all its parliamentary stages so rapidly earlier today, was needed to correct an error made in earlier legislation. The order before us may not be a similar slip, or error, but I believe it to be a misjudgment of a different kind.
The order does not apply the equivalent provisions in the English legislation with regard to mental nursing homes. The explanatory document says:
The Department believes that the registration and inspection powers proposed for Boards in respect of all nursing homes should enable Boards adequately to safeguard the welfare of all residents whatever their individual disabilities and needs.
The Minister touched on the point briefly, but I did not get a clear picture of the thinking behind the decision not to include the category of mental nursing homes. I should like him to deal with the matter in more detail in his wind-up speech. Is it envisaged that persons with mental disabilities should be in ordinary nursing homes, or that there may be homes catering specifically for such people? Is it thought that the existing regulations are sufficient?
It is important that we know what the Government think, because we can see the way in which their policies are evolving, so that much provision in residential and other homes will move into the private sector. It is important that the Minister should give us a clear picture of the sort of private sector provision that is intended for persons with mental disabilities. It may be thought that there will be no private sector provision. I should like more detail on that.
Other hon. Members have raised another matter in connection with facilities and services moving into the private sector. The amendments being made to the 1972 order by schedule 1(2), which inserts the new article 14A—

Rev. Ian Paisley: I have a document before me issued by the Southern health and social services board, which includes reference to private nursing and residential care for persons with mental handicaps. it contains a whole series of proposed regulations for the private sector, so the Government must have it in mind to include provisions for such persons.

Mr. Trimble: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that information; it underlines the need for a more detailed and open approach from the Minister, to explain what will happen.
I shall not go in detail into the new article 14A and 15 to be inserted into the 1972 order, because I believe that another hon. Member, who I suspect is better informed than I, wishes to deal with the subject.
The provisions permitting property and equipment to be used by private sector bodies say that such use is to be
on such terms and conditions as may be agreed between the Department and the body or person".
I echo the concern expressed by the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) to ensure that there is a level playing field and that certain organisations are not treated more favourably. If there is to be a degree of private sector involvement and competition in the provision of services, let it at least be introduced on a proper commercial basis.
Significant services are moving out of the state sector and into the private sector. My hon. Friends have explained earlier the consequences involving the closure of hospitals, nursing homes and residential homes in some areas. The Minister gives me a brief wintry smile. He may recall the correspondence that I had with him when he was also responsible for Spelga house, in Banbridge in my constituency; it was part of Banbridge hospital, and involved state provision of long-term continuing care for elderly persons.
For years there have been proposals implying that Spelga house will be run down and closed. In his opening speech, the Minister talked about lack of representations on such matters. Yet he will recall the occasions on which we made representations to him, and the occasions on which he refused to meet us, saying that we should have the opportunity to meet him only when the official closure procedure, was brought into operation. Spelga house has been effectively closed: no new admissions have been made for a long time, and as the elderly residents age and die their number is diminishing. So there is no state provision of continuing care for elderly people in the Banbridge area; people now have to go further afield, because Spelga house is effectively closed.
The closure procedures have not been operated, and still no provision is made for effective consultation. Yet with the new-fangled boards without elected representatives, and the councils with elected representatives being effectively smothered, there is no way in which local people can make their voices heard.
All that highlights our concern—especially in view of the fact that, as the Minister knows, in the case of Spelga house there has been a trail of broken promises under both the previous board and the current board. That increases our concern about the way in which the new semi-privatised and private provision has been introduced into the health service—the order facilitates that process. Although we welcome in principle the prospect of regulation, inspection and control of nursing homes, the context in which they are being introduced causes us nothing but concern.

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: My desire to intervene, albeit briefly, in the debate is prompted by two considerations. The first is that I like to think that, in a small way, I represent the interests of trade unionists in the House. A number of trade unionists have made representations to me about the draft order because they are legitimately concerned about its implications not only

for their livelihoods but for the service to which they are dedicated, and which they think could be prejudiced by its implementation. Their anxiety is prompted by the effect that the order will have on the clients and patients whom they serve.
The second reason why I am pleased to have caught your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, is that I take seriously our role in Parliament of endeavouring to check the Executive. In the brief time in which I have been here, I have noticed that measures whose debates have the least attendance often justify the maximum scrutiny. That is true of this order.
When the Minister took us through the draft order in his opening speech, he was clever when he came to article 37, which relates to schedule 1. He said that the purpose of article 37 and of schedule 1 was to overcome some minor legal difficulty, but he did not amplify what that legal difficulty was. If I can do nothing else, I invite the Minister to amplify the point. I am greatly concerned that what will be slipped through in the guise of schedule 1 is a major change in the administration, not only of health care, but of social services in the Province of Northern Ireland.
A little while ago, Madam Deputy Speaker, you drew to an hon. Member's attention the fact that the order is called the Registered Homes (Northern Ireland) Order 1992. That was a legitimate point for the Chair to make. It crossed my mind that you, might not have had an opportunity to study the order in detail. Using schedule 1, the Government intend, under the misnomer of an order on registered homes, to introduce a major change in the administration of health and social services which transcends the narrrow issue of registered homes.
The proposed change deeply concerns people who work in health and social services in the Province. I invite you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and other hon. Members to examine the new article 14A in schedule 1, which says:
The Department may make arrangements for the provision by any other body or person of any of the health services on such terms and conditions as may be agreed between the Department and that other body or person.
That provision is drawn widely and has caused some concern. The Minister should have given far more amplification of what was intended by its inclusion in the schedule.
My fear and that of Northern Ireland trade unionists who have expressed their worries to me is that the Minister intends to overcome the Government's difficulty in trying to implement health and social services trusts within the Province. The Health and Personal Social Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1991 has run into difficulty in that the Government are unable, because health and social services are integrated in the Province, to create a trust for social services under previous legislation. If the order goes through tonight, article 14A will be added to the Health and Personal Social Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1972, coupled with article 15, which is also included in the schedule. The Government will be able to effect trusts without any further debate or consultation within the Province. It is disgraceful that a provision that will greatly affect the administration of health and social services in any part of the United Kingdom should be dealt with in this way.
I draw attention to one immediate flaw of this method of legislation. Bills applying to England and Wales and to Scotland have a long title. That acts as a useful check list for legislators and for the Chair who can see whether hon.


Members are keeping to the subject. However, there are no long titles in Northern Ireland orders. If there were, the Government and the Minister would have been rumbled when introducing, in the guise of the order, a major change in the administration of health and social services. I hope that consideration can be given to incorporating a long title in Northern Ireland orders so that hon. Members and the Speaker can see exactly what is involved.
The explanatory note accompanying the order buttresses my concern. It says:
Schedule 1 lists minor amendments to existing legislation mainly required as a consequence of the Order.
If one reads the schedule again and again, one finds that the explanatory document is wholly misleading. These are not minor amendments to Northern Ireland legislation; they are major amendments. To suggest that they are mainly required as a consequence of the order is demonstrably untrue.
If the Minister believes that my charge is unfair and unfounded, I hope that he will take it from me that others, especially in Northern Ireland public sector trade unions, will read reports of our debate and will want a categorical assurance that the order will not be the measure by which the Government remedy what they consider to be a flaw in or lack of legislation so that they can promote their desire of creating trusts in health and social services in Northern Ireland.
Lord Arran, who is the appropriate Minister in the other place, has promised that there will be separate legislation relating to the trusts, especially in relation to dealing with the services administered by the health boards, which in England and Wales would be local authority social services. Lord Arran has promised separate legislation, but the fear tonight is that, under the darkness of the evening, the power for the creation of social services trusts has been slipped into the order. I hope that there will be no equivocation. I trust that the Minister will either come clean and admit that the order will affect the trusts or say that the hon. Member for Thurrock is wrong.

Rev. Ian Paisley: As a Northern Ireland Member, I welcome the free exchange across the House tonight. I wonder what any hon. Member, including you, Madam Deputy Speaker, would think if he or she had to say to a constituent, "Oh, you should have written about Bill. You should have written about your opposition and about what amendments you wanted. My hands are tied. If you have not written in, when I stand up in the House, the Government will say that there was no real representation." That is the mess we are in tonight.
People in Northern Ireland expect their elected Members to deal with issues after they have lobbied them, not after they have written letters. I am amazed that the explanatory document on the order states:
the recent consultative exercise in Northern Ireland … evoked widespread support for new legislation.
Only one Member from Northern Ireland supports the legislation. All the other Members who represent Northern Ireland oppose it.
I am told that the Minister will answer every question that he has been asked, so I want to ask him some questions. Are the 100 people who wrote in in respect of

the first proposal to lay a draft the "widespread support" for new legislation? If 100 people write in, is that widespread support for legislation?

Mr. Peter Robinson: Or opposition.

Rev. Ian Paisley: On whose authority was the issue included in the background and scope of the draft? When and how was it decided that the matter should be included?
No hon. Member who has spoken tonight is for the irresponsibles. I am against the irresponsibles involved in the care of the elderly. I have taken up cases in that regard and I shall continue to do that. The irresponsibles in Northern Ireland must be dealt with. However, there are no people more irresponsible than those on the boards and they flout the law.
The Minister should consult Lord Arran about the home in Broughshane. The board gave me a categorical assurance that the home would not be closed until a deputation of the citizens and I met the Minister. However, the board proceeded immediately to pressure the people in that home. They were told that, if they did not pick another home close by, they would be sent 20 miles away. Those elderly people collapsed under that intimidation. How can the board officials love the elderly and care for them when they stoop to that level after having promised an hon. Member that no action would be taken?
Lord Arran can confirm that I raised that issue with him. I told him that his office had told us that the home would not be closed, but that that had already happened and the people had been shifted under severe pressure. The irresponsibles in Northern Ireland are on the boards.
It is terrible that the people comprising 60 per cent. of the representation of the homes cannot make representations to the Minister. When those people came to me, I advised them to become organised, because they were not organised. They were individual people who were running homes and they found that the board was exercising a heavy hand. I told them that, if they were not organised, they would not be able to speak with one voice. However, they found that, once they were organised, they ran foul of the board and its officials.
It is no laughing matter when board officials use threats on the telephone. I have raised such matters with Lord Arran. I presented him with a dossier of complaints and I had correspondence with him about those serious matters. I hope that the Minister will take them seriously. No one who makes a legitimate complaint should be intimidated for making that complaint. After all, the trade unions fought for the right to organist: Everyone has the right to organise and state the issues clearly before people whom they believe are dealing with the issues in a legal way.
I hope that the Minister will say that the people who run 160 homes and supply 3,600 beds will at least be listened to. It is amazing that I have to make that plea tonight. Those people should be consulted and the Minister must contact those homes. It is no good saying that, if we place a statement in the press, representations can be made and everything will be well.

Sir James Kilfedder: Is the hon. Gentleman telling the House that the Northern Ireland Care Homes Association or its predecessor was totally unaware of the order? That is not true. I understand that they had consultations with officials. The order does not come as a surprise to them tonight.

Rev. Ian Paisley: It may come as a surprise to the hon. Gentleman, who said that no representations had been made to him, to learn that those people met him in June. He gave them 12 minutes of his time and did not reply to their representations.

Sir James Kilfedder: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Rev. Ian Paisley: Let me finish. The hon. Gentleman need not get excited.

Sir James Kilfedder: I am not getting excited; it is the hon. Gentleman who is getting excited.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I am not getting excited. The hon. Gentleman seems to believe that the 160 homes that supply 3,600 beds are run by people who are not to be depended on. Those people are open and they come to hon. Members openly. They declare who they are. If they were not responsible people, they would not want to reveal themselves. If they were a body of people with black marks against them which could be proved, they would not deal with the matter openly.
I remind the hon. Member for North Down (Sir J. Kilfedder) that he said that no such representations had been made to him—only representations from one. However, tonight I received a note to the effect that those people met the hon. Member for North Down in June. The hon. Gentleman gave them 12 minutes of his time and after they left there was no further comment or response to their representations.

Sir James Kilfedder: I utterly refute the allegation that the hon. Gentleman just made, and I treat it with the utmost contempt. It is contemptuous of him to make that allegation in the House tonight without consulting me beforehand and taking my word for it that I do not dismiss any complaint from a constituent in the manner that he described. I was the one who informed an owner of a residential home at the weekend that the order was to come before the House this week. The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) and his colleague the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) were then informed. They were surprised because they did not know that the order was to come before the House today.

Mr. Peter Robinson: Rubbish.

Rev. Ian Paisley: All I shall say to the hon. Member for North Down is that the gentlemen concerned are in the Strangers Gallery. Let him meet me immediately after the debate and meet them face to face. It was utterly despicable of the hon. Gentleman to try to attack the character of my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) in that way. The hon. Gentleman knows that I do not make, and have never made, charges without dealing with them. So we will meet those gentlemen after the debate. The hon. Gentleman will be face to face with one of his constituents and he can answer to him.
This is a most serious matter. It is regrettable that any charge should be made against anyone who runs a home in Northern Ireland who is trying publicly to do something to canvass support for his point of view. If people are irresponsible, they must be dealt with. I would not support any proposal that would not deal adequately with the care of people in nursing homes and I would not tolerate any derogation from the proper standards and I am known for that. If anybody derogates from the proper standards, it is the boards.
A lady died in Waveney hospital, in the heart of my constituency, at the weekend. When I telephoned Lord Arran, he confessed to me that the board had not even told him. Her body was found at a rubbish tip. That should have been reported immediately to the Minister. The first man to tell the Minister's office was myself. The board members did not even think it worth while to tell the responsible Minister. Those are the people who are to have power under the order. It is time Ministers took those people in hand and dealt with them in the way that they need to be dealt with.
I have been a minister of the gospel for 46 years. I visit hospitals and I have pastoral concern for people. I will not cover up for anybody who runs a nursing home wrongly, but the people who have come to me are respectable people who run decent, honourable nursing homes. I object to any form of intimidation from board members because they do not like what is happening.
The whole board system is absolutely ridiculous. As we sit in the House tonight, a board of faceless individuals is making decisions. The hon. Member for North Down knows the position in his area. We know what is happening in County Down at present. It is already happening in my area. We will have more cuts tomorrow. What will happen to the elderly, the aged and the infirm? A country that cannot look after its elderly does not deserve anything. We all should have concern for such matters, and that is why I speak on this issue tonight.
It is essential for the Minister to get the message. He should consult the Secretary of State now, withdraw the order and let us all sit around the table together. Speaking about getting around tables, what better subject could motivate every party in Northern Ireland than care for the elderly and care for those who need our help? The Minister should take the order back. What difference will it make if he takes it back for a month? The difference will be an order that will be better, more substantial and more helpful—

Mr. Peter Robinson: And more acceptable.

Rev. Ian Paisley: And more acceptable to all the people concerned.
The tragedy is that, no matter what we say, we cannot alter a dot or stroke a T in the order. No hon. Member from outside Northern Ireland would like to have that system of government. It is utterly detestable that that is how we legislate for Northern Ireland. As I often say when I speak outside Northern Ireland to people who want to know what is happening, "It is interesting that, as a Member from Northern Ireland, I can help to amend legislation for Scotland, England and Wales, but I cannot amend legislation for the people who sent me to the House of Commons". That system needs to come to an end as quickly as possible. We are now reaping what the sowing has been. If we sow the wind, we reap the whirlwind. Why should the elderly, the aged and the people who need help have to reap the whirlwind? I appeal to the Minister to take action.
Will the Minister help us and say, "Before the regulations are finally drafted and laid, we will have proper discussions about them so that they will be made as acceptable as they can be to all the interests concerned"? Surely that would be a step forward. We have never before been able even to glance at regulations. They just rode on the back of an order and that was it.
I am particularly worried about two aspects of the order. The first is in regard to employment in homes. As far as I can gather from the order, board officials can say to the owner of a home, "You cannot employ that person," and they do not need to give any reason. The owner of the home is bound to ask, "Why can I not accept that person?" We have intimate, close, so-called fair employment legislation—my attitude to it is well known in the House—but the employer has to abide by it. An applicant can say to the employer, "All right, I am going to take you to law. You will not give me a job, but I have all the necessary qualifications." Why can he not be given the job? It is not because the owner would not employ him; it is because the board says that he cannot employ him.
Will the Minister assure me that the board will take responsibility and that the applicant can take action against the board and not against the person who was going to employ him?

Mr. Robinson: And that it pays the compensation.

Rev. Ian Paisley: And that it pays the compensation that would be meted out if the man proved his case in court. That important point needs to be hammered home to the Minister. We need an answer tonight. How can people who want to run homes and run them well be put in that position by this legislation?
The matter has not been thought out at all. What the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) said about justices of the peace shows that it was lifted from English legislation. Justices of the peace in Northern Ireland have very little power. Tory candidates who do not win elections usually get a JP-ship just to keep them happy. The Democratic Unionist party has a heavy slice of the vote, and among us we have three JPs. I used to have to go to an Official Unionist to ask him to sign my election returns. They were always absolutely accurate, of course, and I had no bother with him.
I was amazed. I thought that the Government were bringing justices of the peace back into action. "Justice of the peace" in Northern Ireland is just like an honorary title that is given to people of good standing. All that JPs are asked to do is sign warrants, and many of them do not want to sign warrants. When they see the police coming, they get away because they might have to sign a warrant against their friends and they would not like their signatures to be on the warrant.
The Minister should take care when he is lifting legislation from England into such orders. The draftsmen are not very competent. If they are drafting legislation for Northern Ireland and do not know what a justice of the peace in Northern Ireland is, how can they do the intricate work of drafting? I trust that the Minister will take that point on board.
The Government are giving away public property. As I read the order, board members can say, "You will do that, but we will do what we like." Board members are not tied by any regulations. They can change them. They can say, "That does not apply." At any time they can change any measure that we are supposed to pass tonight. They can do exactly what they like.
I should like a public inquiry into the many people who have been placed in certain private homes when public homes have been closed down. Why has there been discrimination? Why do some people in the private homes industry have all the beds that they want filled, and not

only filled but paid for and held in trust for the board, when other people are doing their best to make a livelihood in that sector? Those matters need to be addressed by the Minister. The boards should not be given such massive powers.
The hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) made an excellent speech in which he touched the very core of the matter. He referred to the boards' massive powers. It is amazing that in a democracy we are prepared to hand over such powers to a board. The right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) has told us who the members of the boards are. The boards consist of defeated candidates who could not get elected and of people who were employed by the Government for years, Government pensioners. Does anyone think that they will rock the boat? If we refer to the biographies of the people who are on these quangos, we discover that many of them were in Government employment.
The chairman of a new quango was appointed recently. Who is he? He is the former head of the civil service, Sir Ken Bloomfield. Of course, he has to get a nice little job. Does anyone think that he would rock the boat? We had experience of him from the days of Terence O'Neill. We know that he used to write Terence O'Neill's speeches, and we all know what happened to Terence O'Neill.
Will the Minister give an assurance that no person who was employed by the Government will be on one of these tribunals? Will he give an undertaking that the tribunals will be independent bodies to which people can put their case?

Mr. Allan Rogers: I hope the hon. Gentleman is not trying to convey to the House that this system of appointments to quangos is peculiar to Northern Ireland. It is peculiar to the Conservative Government, as we have seen in Wales, with the viceroys who operate as Secretaries of State both in Wales and in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Mackinlay: And in Scotland.

Mr. Rogers: And also in Scotland. With absolute impunity they appoint Tory party officials, ex-officials and the husbands and wives of Ministers even to quangos to run the affairs of our countries.

Rev. Ian Paisley: No doubt the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers), speaking for the Principality, knows what he is talking about. However, the hon. Gentleman has two advantages. At least Wales has local government with some power and he can elect people as councillors. In Northern Ireland local government can only empty bins, look after cemeteries and build a few leisure centres; that is all it can do.
Of course, local authorities are consulted. The consultative programme in Northern Ireland is immense. Councils can sit till three o'clock in the morning just to be consulted, and they do. The pay is better after a certain hour. I do not blame them. Then they are abused by their constituents because they do not make decisions—but they are not allowed to make decisions.
In addition to having local government with some power, Welsh Members have the right to move amendments to legislation that affects them. We have no right to move any amendments tonight. This is the law of the Medes and Persians—we take it or we leave it. There


are many things in the order with which I agree but I cannot vote for one part and reject another. I must vote against the whole measure.
The subject is so important that it would be a fine gesture on the part of the Minister if he were to consult and were to say, "This is a troublesome order, and there has been much opposition from all over the House. We will take time to reconsider it." By doing that, the Minister would be doing good service to the people of Northern Ireland and to the House. When he meets me, his boss talks to me about morale outside. The best thing that he could do for the morale of the people of Northern Ireland would be to take the order back and reconsider it; then the people might say that there is some hope of politics succeeding. I make that appeal to the Minister. He should argue his case. I should be happy for the debate to be adjourned so that he might argue his case before we come back to the matter again.
We can do nothing now about what is in the order, but we can do something about the regulations if the Minister gives us the chance. That is not as good as having the order right, but at least it will help us to satisfy those who have the interests of the residents of homes at heart.
I have various documents here about key workers. I have one entitled "New Key Workers", which was sent to a home. It says that everyone in the home will have a worker who will be in charge of that individual person to deal with pre-admission work, admission work, record keeping, care programmes, reviews, bathing, clothes, personal shopping, beds, hair care, appointments, liaison with relatives, liaison with other professionals and special interests. We are told in the Minister's document that all that is to cost nothing.
I had better read it to the Minister so that he will know what his document says. By the way, this is the same document that was said to have evoked widespread support. It states:
What is it going to cost? The order will not lead to any significant increase in public expenditure. The introduction of fees is intended to make the board's work of registering and inspecting private and voluntary sector residential care homes and nursing homes self-financing.
Are the homes to pay for the resident worker? We are told that the only increase in public sector staff will arise with the establishment of a registered homes tribunal, and that only a part-time secretary will be needed for that.
The Minister should get the document which has been issued for consultation. He should not ask me how I got this document but I have got it. It is entitled "Private Nursing/Residential Care for Persons with a Mental Handicap". It is a draft document issued by the Southern health and social services board. In regard to key workers it states:
The board will identify a key worker for each service user. The key worker will maintain on-going links with the service user and home staff and will monitor, on behalf of the board, the well-being of the service user. The role of a board appointed key worker should be seen as distinct from the role of a primary care worker identified for an individual service user as part of a home's operational policy.
Key workers will:
have access to service users;
have access to care plans and be involved in care reviews;
be informed of any significant developments that may occur concerning the service user;

except in emergency situations be consulted regarding any change in care objectives for service users."
Is all that to be paid for by the home?

Mr. Peter Robinson: Will my hon. Friend take into account that not only will the key worker have to be paid for by the homes if the system is to be self-financing, but the inspectorate, which is three or four times greater in Northern Ireland and therefore three or four times more costly than in Great Britain, will also have to be paid for by the homes?

Rev. Ian Paisley: Yes, I take that into account. That will tell against people who will he able to give proper care, because finances will be cut and a major cut in the finances of the health and social services boards in Northern Ireland will flow from what happens in the House tomorrow. The future is bleak. The Government seem to be saying that they will do away with the public sector and put such provision in to the private sector, but the private sector will have to finance it. The Government will not have that responsibility. The Minister must come clean with us about that tonight.

Sir James Kilfedder: I shall speak briefly to welcome the order. The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) requested the Minister to withdraw the order, but I ask him not to do so.
First, I do not like the Order-in-Council procedure and I have criticised and attacked it in the Chamber on many occasions. I find it unacceptable, but it is the way in which legislation has been introduced in Northern Ireland.
Secondly, I do not like the Eastern health and social services board, which is the bureaucracy in charge of the health service in my area of North Down. The bureaucrats spend most of their time looking after their own welfare rather than the welfare of the people that I represent.
I must make plain my approach to the order. One subject which concerns me deeply is the welfare of the elderly in residential homes. Within the scope of the debate, strangely enough, we have heard mention of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, and of Protestantism and Catholicism, and Dublin has been dragged into it. We have heard mention of pay for councillors for sitting long hours, of the last Prime Minister of Northern Ireland, and of a former head of the civil service there. Allegations were made about dictatorship; and a personal attack was made on the Minister. I ask him to brush such personal remarks aside. As I have said before, he is recognised as a person who has shown that he is genuinely sincere about Ulster and the Ulster people.
I care about the welfare of elderly people in residential homes, and I welcome the order for that reason, because it requires all residential care homes to be registered and and to be inspected regularly and properly. What is wrong with that? I am concerned because many of my constituents are in such homes. I have talked to them and have visited many of the homes in my constituency. I have also talked to relatives and friends of residents in care homes for the elderly. I am worried about the way in which they may be treated by unscrupulous proprietors.
As I said in an intervention in the speech of the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien), elderly people are among the most vulnerable in our community. We must do everything possible to defend them.
Certain matters have been mentioned in the debate which would give cause for consideration, but if the order is defective let us put it into effect as quickly as possible and then introduce amendments to it.
For every day that goes by an elderly person may be left at the mercy of someone who cares more about profit than about the welfare of the people in their accommodation. There is nothing wrong with the profit motive. It acts as an incentive to encourage interested people to offer accommodation to those in need of care because of age and infirmity. The overwhelming majority of owners of residential homes look after residents properly.
I am worried about the unscrupulous few—and it is no use saying that there are only a few. If one elderly person is ill-treated by a proprietor of a residential home and we do nothing about it, we are as guilty as the people in charge of the home. That is why I praise the Minister for introducing the order. It is not his Department, but he has brought such matters before us in the past on behalf of the Minister with responsibility for health, the Earl of Arran, who is in another place. I know from my experience that he is only anxious to do what is best for people in Northern Ireland.
In the past five years residential care homes have mushroomed throughout the United Kingdom. Northern Ireland is no exception. As in the rest of the United Kingdom, Northern Ireland has a few unscrupulous owners who are not as caring about their residents as they should be. The order can deal with those few who, lamentably, have little or no regard for elderly residents. We all know what can happen to an elderly person in someone else's care. It may involve a tight budget for meals, providing food of a quality and quantity below what elderly residents should have. I have heard that accusation made against a particular home and I have relayed the complaint. It may also involve an unacceptable degree of sedation. We have read in the press—the report applied only to Britain but we must be aware that it happens elsewhere—about armchairs that were deliberately used to detain the person placed in them.
The order is to care for people in residential homes and ensure, on behalf of the people of Northern Ireland, that elderly people who are placed in the care of others for payment are not treated in a manner that insults their dignity, robs them of their pride or undermines their health.
The vast majority of residential care home owners are caring and the homes are well managed. Having seen some homes in my constituency, I have been impressed by the attentiveness of the staff and the homely atmosphere. It would be wrong of me to mention particular homes, but when one enters certain homes one feels the warmth of the staff—the matron and others—and when one talks to the elderly residents one knows that the staff really care for those in their charge. It gives me a great feeling of joy when I enter such homes, but makes me extremely concerned about other homes where things may be happening which we would not like to see happen to our elderly relatives.

Mr. Peter Robinson: That is precisely the point that I made during the course of my remarks. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, if it is right to regulate and license those homes in the private sector, homes that are under the control of the board or any other statutory body and children's and young persons' homes should also be brought under the same inspectorate? If it is right in the

case of one, is it not right in the case of the other? If the hon. Gentleman believes that it would be right to include them under the order, why pass defective legislation?

Sir James Kilfedder: It is a strange logic to say that, because the legislation is defective, legislation that would be beneficial to so many people should be denied to them simply because it could have incorporated something else. If I thought about it, I could probably extend the hon. Gentleman's list. The list has been put forward as an excuse for delaying the introduction of the order. It is not a justification for delay.
Naturally, I would welcome the extension of the order to other statutory homes, but I do not think that the Minister should delay the order. He is doing his duty by the people of Northern Ireland. He knows that I would be prepared to criticise him if I felt that he was failing in his duty. He would welcome suggestions from me or any other hon. Member who wishes to see the order approved, and I have no doubt that he will take them on board in the implementation of the order.

Mr. Rogers: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way, and excuse myself, as a fellow Celt, for interfering. I am in a dilemma. Earlier the hon. Gentleman said that we should accept the legislation although it might well be defective, as we could later alter it. He also said, as did other hon. Members, that the legislation cannot be altered. Does that mean that the hon. Gentleman is imploring us to support defective legislation because it can later be altered, when it cannot be? Does he mean that, in order for the legislation to be amended, it has to be thrown out and completely new legislation introduced?
If I understood him correctly, the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) asked the Minister to take the order away for a month, look at it again and iron out the problems that have been highlighted. I know that I am making a rather lengthy intervention—

Madam Deputy Speaker: I think that that is an understatement, and the hon. Gentleman must resume his seat.

Sir James Kilfedder: I am only repeating what people have said, which is that there are defects in the order. If there are, I would welcome improvements to the order.

Mr. Rogers: rose—

Sir James Kilfedder: I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman, as we must get on.
I would welcome improvements to the order, but we should allow it to proceed. I have not received any representations from the registered home owners stating that the order should be amended line by line. I have heard from only one lady at the weekend, who told me about one aspect of the order. I have a high regard for her; she runs a home of excellent standards. That is the only representation that I have heard.
If the order were defective, surely the Minister would have received a stream of complaints, recommendations and amendments. I am sure that hon. Members present would have been briefed about the order's defects; I have not been briefed about any.

Mr. Rogers: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir James Kilfedder: Yes, I will.

Madam Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) must make it snappy.

Mr. Rogers: I can tell the hon. Gentleman of one defect in the order, having made a quick perusal of it. If the so-called justices of the peace, who are symbolic in Northern Ireland, are asked to allow an appeal, action to close down the home is taken by a board, and any appeal is made to the board. Therefore, the board acts as judge and jury in its own action. Surely that is fundamentally wrong in any legislation.

Sir James Kilfedder: I cannot find the place now, but I think that if the hon. Gentleman studies the order he will see that there is a right of appeal to a tribunal against any of the board's decisions.
I believe that the order will result in better protection for elderly people. The call that I issue from the House tonight is that residents in residential homes for the elderly, and their relatives and friends, should be aware of the fact that they are now provided with a more effective opportunity to lodge complaints about poor standards or ill treatment. That call must go out. It will comfort the relatives of those in care to know that there is an effective means of dealing with complaints. Good registered home owners should welcome that. The lady of whom I spoke —I do not wish to mention her name—is an excellent home owner.
If the Care Homes Association wishes to maintain a high standard, it should support any legislation that deals with the unscrupulous few.
There is a clear onus on all hon. Members to safeguard the person of the elderly, their dignity and their rights. Every law and every regulation that flows from it may seem irksome to many good people, whatever their sphere of activity. However, they must realise that we are legislating to root out those who have nothing but ill will for their residents. By doing so, we shall safeguard the welfare of the elderly in homes throughout Northern Ireland.
Hon. Members have spoken about inspection. Up to now, the inspection of homes has been inadequate, and I am not sure how the new legislation will operate. However, more inspections should improve the standards of homes. I have always said that the Government should spend more money on carers—related or voluntary—who look after the elderly in their own homes with their possessions around them and a knowledge of the local shops and churches and so on.
Perhaps, when I was replying to the intervention of the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers), I should have mentioned statutory homes. In my area, the Banks statutory residential home for the elderly is threatened with closure. There are vacancies in the home but they are not filled because officials want to kick out the residents and take over the home. The officials already have a foot in the door and want to convert the home to palatial offices for Eastern board bureaucrats. The Minister must make sure that the board does not get away with that.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir James Kilfedder: No. The hon. Gentleman had his say. [Interruption] I ask the hon. Gentleman to keep quiet.
I urge the Minister to look into that matter because it would be a grave injustice to the residents of that home if

the board suddenly closed it. Those elderly people are worried about their future. I shall shortly present a petition on behalf of the people of Bangor urging the House to save the Banks residential home and to block the door to the bureaucrats in the Eastern board.

Mr. Allan Rogers: The issues raised in the debate have general application in the United Kingdom.
The hon. Member for North Down (Sir J. Kilfedder) said that we should be extremely concerned about the condition and care of the elderly in the community. I agree. The Government should provide more resources so that the elderly can be looked after in their own homes rather than in hospital or residential homes where, occasionally, the standard of care is not all that we would wish.

Rev. Ian Paisley: If the board is such a wicked, bad, rascally body that the hon. Member for North Down (Sir J. Kilfedder) wants the Minister to take it in hand, is it not strange that he also wants it to be given more power so that it can inspect all the homes where old people are in care?

Mr. Rogers: I would not want to get involved in the problems of any specific board in Northern Ireland, or in any other aspect of the government of Northern Ireland, with which I disagree entirely.
If the hon. Member for North Down is saying that there is a problem with that home, and he has to petition Parliament in an attempt to rectify the problem, then there is obviously something wrong. From my admittedly superficial perusal of the order, I should not have thought that it would put that right. As I understand it, if someone objects to what is going on in any of these homes, the right of appeal under article 27 is to a tribunal. But the tribunal is appointed by the Minister. If both the tribunal and the board are appointed by the Minister, where is the independent review of any issue about which, for example, the hon. Member for North Down wishes to complain?
There is something fundamentally wrong with the order, and we shall vote against it. The Minister should take it away and have another look at it. It would not be the first time that that had happened, but the Government are so arrogant in the way they govern the country that that is asking an awful lot. As I said earlier, my Northern Ireland colleagues should not feel too isolated on this. Scotland and Wales have the same problem all the time, with the arrogance of the viceroys who rule in the Welsh and Scottish Offices.
I wholeheartedly agree with Northern Ireland Members of Parliament and my own Front-Bench spokesman who have said that they will vote against the order. I am sure that I shall be told off for interfering in the debate, but as I have recently been appointed Front-Bench spokesman for foreign affairs—

Mr. Roger Stott: My hon. Friend will be debating Hong Kong soon.

Mr. Rogers: I shall leave Hong Kong for another occasion, but I may have a locus in this debate, too.
Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom and it deserves the best of legislation. Therefore, we should reject the order.

Mr. Hanley: I am pleased to be able to reply to the debate. Right hon. and hon. Members will know how assiduous Northern Ireland Members of Parliament are in carrying out their duties. On occasions such as this they find it easy to fill any time that becomes unexpectedly available to them. This is my first night off after six months of the talks process and I could not have thought of a better way to spend the evening. I never expected that the evening would end early and I intend to fill it as best I can by answering the points that have been raised. The extra time is a blessing.
I was interested in the little vignette of a speech made by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Roberts) a few moments ago. I note that it is the first time that the Labour party has said that it will vote against such legislation. I had a cursory glance in the Library earlier and I noted that the legislation on which the order is based, the Registered Homes Act 1984, was apparently not voted upon in the House. The Registered Homes (Amendment) Act 1991, the other Act upon which the order is based, was also not voted upon and went through almost formally.
It is interesting, therefore, that the Opposition intend to vote against the order tonight. I shall return to the impact of a defeat, which I would take as a vote of —confidence[Interruption.]—in myself, of course. I want to answer as many points as possible, so I should be grateful for as few interventions as possible.
The decision to review the existing legislation governing the regulation of private and voluntary sector residential care and nursing homes in Northern Ireland was, as several hon. Members have said, the result of two major influences.
The first was the substantial growth in such homes in recent years and the growing pressure on the registering and inspecting authorities which existed at the time to ensure that there were satisfactory standards of care and accommodation and that they were maintained. The second influence was the legislation to which I have referred and its associated subordinate legislation. It is important to remember that that legislation was supported by the House without Division. The legislation gave registering authorities in England and Wales strength and powers to regulate residential care and nursing homes.
Following a comprehensive consultative exercise with a wide range of interested statutory, voluntary and private sector organisations and indviduals, the general consensus emerged that in Northern Ireland we should, as far as possible, bring our legislation broadly in line with that of the 1984 Act.
I mentioned earlier that there were more than 100 responses to the consultation on the draft order and then there were 13 responses. I mentioned that none of those 13 came from hon. Members. Hon. Members have explained why there were only 13, but the reason for such a small number of responses was not merely that no legislation could be altered at this stage in the House but that there was proper long-term consultation in designing that legislation. The legislation was therefore properly consulted on in advance.
The draft order has the great merit of drawing together in one piece of legislation all the primary provisions governing the registration and inspection of both categories of homes.
The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) asked if I could give an assurance that the Northern Ireland Care Homes Association would be consulted about regulations to be prepared by the Department. That was also mentioned by the hon. Members for South Down (Mr. McGrady) and for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley).
I can give a categorical assurance that such consultation will take place. Draft regulations will be issued to a wide range of private, voluntary and statutory sector organisations within the next week, including the Northern Ireland Care Homes Association. The draft regulations will go to all representative bodies and all
I welcome the hon. Member for Normanton (M r. O'Brien) to his new post, and congratulate him on his speech. He suggested that the boards were not truly accountable, and that they would allow standards to slip. Standards will be governed both by subordinate legislation and by guidelines prepared by responsible professional bodies. I dealt with that point earlier. I do not believe that standards will be allowed to slip, nor do I accept that the boards are not truly accountable. Each board has had to establish an advisory committee to provide a link between the inspection units and the public interest. Moreover, I took pains earlier to stress the arm's-length establishment of the units. I hope that no one who reads my speech imagines that the units will be anything other than independent and reliable.
The hon. Member for Normanton should realise that, if home owners have any genuine complaints about the way in which inspection units have treated them under existing Northern Ireland legislation, my noble Friend Lord Arran will be anxious to hear about it. I shall suggest holding a meeting with those who have specific complaints.
The new legislation will actually make it easier for home owners to appeal against decisions made by registration and inspection units. As I explained to the hon. Member for Antrim, North, that will be done by way of the Registered Homes Tribunal, to which a number of hon. Members have referred. The tribunal will benefit from the presence of a panel of professional experts who, as I said earlier, will build up a body of useful case law.
I must admit that the Department of Health and Social Services originally had no strong views about the need for a change from the existing courts appeal system, and doubted whether the likely number of appeals would justify the establishment of a separate tribunal system. In subsequently opting for such a system, it took account of several points.
First and most important, the majority of those who commented on the matter during the consultation exercise —in response to the initial consultative paper—were in favour of a tribunal system. Secondly, the positive feedback from registration authorities and proprietors of homes in regard to the performance of tribunals in England and Wales seemed to suggest that a similar system would be sensible in Northern Ireland. Thirdly, it was felt that Northern Ireland would benefit from the professional expertise of the tribunals' members and, as I have said, from the accumulation of a useful body of case law


relating to a specialised aspect of health and social services activity. A fourth consideration was the speed with which cases could be dealt with, and the comparative cheapness of the process.
Some hon. Members have suggested that tribunals might be full of "tainted" appointees. I assure them that the Lord Chancellor appoints a panel of legally qualified people to act as chairmen of tribunals. The Department appoints an independent panel of other experts, but they must have the appropriate medical, nursing and social work experience, and no officer of the Deparment can be appointed to a tribunal.

Mr. William O'Brien: I thank the Minister for the kind remarks that he made earlier. We are told that the Lord Chancellor will nominate some tribunal members, and that the boards will nominate others. Will any of the users of the services—residents, or people who work in the homes—be able to sit on tribunals and express their views on issues that are raised?

Rev. Ian Paisley: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Can you confirm that this debate can run until 11.30 pm?

Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is correct. The debate can run until 11.30 this evening.

Mr. Hanley: The hon. Member for Antrim, North ticked me off earlier in the debate. He said that I was laughing during his speech. I was not laughing; I was wincing. At the moment that I winced, the volume control in some part of the House had clearly developed a fault. It was one of the speakers, I think—the speaker at the time, perhaps. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that nothing that he said was a laughing matter.
To the hon. Member for Normanton, the answer is no. These are medically qualified people. [Interruption.] If there are any failings in the system, we shall try to address them in due course, but my feeling is that in that instance there are unlikely to be any failings.

Mr. Peter Robinson: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Hanley: I was about to refer to the hon. Gentleman, but if he would like me to give way I am prepared to do so.

Mr. Robinson: Yes, I should like the Minister to give way.

Mr. Hanley: I am trying to answer the questions that the hon. Gentleman raised in his earlier interventions, but if he would like to ask a few more questions, please carry on.

Mr. Robinson: I am grateful for the Minister's patience. In terms of many of the Northern Ireland tribunals—for example, the unfair constructive dismissal tribunals—it is recognised that a legally competent person should chair it, that somebody might represent the interests of the employers and that somebody else might represent the interests of the employees. Can the Minister not provide the same balance in the tribunals that he intends to set up?

Mr. Hanley: I have already answered that question. In answer to another comment, I said that we shall look at the issue. I believe that I have dealt sufficiently with that point.
The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) referred to inspection units and said that they employed four times as many staff as the inspection units of local authorities in England and Wales. Arm's-length inspection units in England and Wales are provided by local authorities to inspect only residential care homes. They do not inspect nursing homes. Therefore, it is unfair to seek to compare their work load with those of arm's-length inspection units in Northern Ireland, which will be responsible for inspecting both residential care homes and nursing homes.
Reference was made to the costs involved. It will be for the Minister concerned to set the fee levels. The boards will have to tailor their costs to fit that particular cloth.
The hon. Member for Belfast, East also referred to article 25. Was it not unfair, he said, that owners of homes should be expected to represent themselves? They will be allowed legal representation. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for enabling me to clarify that matter.
The hon. Member for Normanton referred to accountability for the regulation of homes, by reference to the Northern Ireland Care Homes Association. So far as I am aware, the Northern Ireland Care Homes Association's request for a meeting with Lord Arran did not include any reference to the need to amend the draft order, nor did it say that it wished to influence its contents. I have already stated that there was considerable consultation and that, as the hon. Member for Belfast, East also mentioned, all the bodies in existence in Northern Ireland in January 1992 were asked to comment on the order. The Northern Ireland Care Homes Association is in existence now. That changes the matter greatly for the future. I shall refer again to the association in a few moments.
The hon. Member for North Down asked whether there should be tighter regulation of standards in the interests of vulnerable people. If we stick with the existing legislation, home owners will not have to pay fees. When we examine the establishment of fees, it is right to consider whether such establishment would be fair and reasonable. I assure the professional associations that the establishment of such fees will be done carefully. We shall not try to establish levels of fees which are seen as unfair.
That leads to the point which was raised by three or four hon. Members about the costs of key workers. I shall come back to that matter when I refer to the speech made by the hon. Member for Antrim, North.
The hon. Member for Normanton referred to Disability Action's commentary on the policy and planning research unit survey. Although that may or may not have been out of order, it was nevertheless an important point. The commentary is simply the first of seven studies to be published under the policy and planning research unit survey. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the matter is being taken fully into account. Disability Action will be called to give evidence to a steering group which is overseeing the survey and considering its implications for policy. Disability Action was consulted during the drafting of the order.
This is the first time that I have met the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) across the Floor of the House. I met him for the first time a few weeks ago in Northern Ireland. I congratulate him on the keen interest that he takes in the affairs of the Province. We are grateful


for the interest that he and his Back-Bench colleagues have shown. I hope that they benefited from their visit to Northern Ireland.
The hon. Member asked whether the order was a back-door method of creating trusts. The provisions which schedule 1(2) inserts into the 1972 order have nothing to do with any health or social service trust. They merely put the private sector on a level playing field with the voluntary sector.
Perhaps I should explain that in more detail. The existing Northern Ireland legislation contained in article 71 of the Health and Personal Social Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1972 permits health and social services boards to enter into contracts with voluntary organisations—non-profit making organisations—to provide any of the health and personal social services. Unfortunately, similar powers do not exist to permit the boards to enter into contracts with private sector organisations for the provision of such services. Therefore, the provisions in paragraphs 2(1) and (2) in schedule 1 specifically ensure that, when implemented, boards will have clear powers to enter into contracts for the provision of any health or personal social services by both voluntary and private sector organisations. I can imagine the lobbying that would have taken place if such a provision had not been included in the order.
I should hate to see any delay in the implementation of provisions to allow local boards to enter into contracts with the private sector for the provision of health or personal social services. Such services include not only residential and nursing home care but day care, respite care and domiciliary support. If the House is saying that it does not wish the private sector to provide any of those services, I invite it to vote against the order tonight.
The hon. Member for Belfast, East referred to new article 50 which will amend the 1972 order. Proposed article 50, as amended, does not apply to registered homes. I assure the hon. Gentleman that it applies to other premises such as day centres. The rights of inspection and entry into registered homes are contained in proposed article 29. The hon. Member for Belfast, East asked whether children's homes should be included in the order. Children's homes are already protected through the provisions for registration and inspection in the Children and Young Persons Act 1969. That is probably what the hon. Member for North Down meant, too. However, I understand that my noble Friend Lord Arran intends soon to bring forward a new proposal for more up-to-date legislation based upon the children's order which operates elsewhere in the United Kingdom and to which other hon. Members have referred. That will all be taken into account shortly.
The hon. Member for Belfast, East also asked why schedule 1 discriminated against the public sector by allowing boards to sell their homes to voluntary organisations. There is no discrimination. As I have said before, schedule 1 is specifically designed to ensure that providers of services in the private sector can compete freely with voluntary organisations for contracts from health and social services boards to supply any of those services.
Another question asked by the hon. Members for Belfast, East and for North Down was whether the order applied to statutory homes provided directly by health boards. No, the order refers only to private and voluntary sector residential care homes and nursing homes, but the

Government are determined that the same high standards of care should apply commonly across the statutory, the voluntary and the private sectors. With that aim in view, the four health boards created the arm's-length inspection unit, to which I have already referred.
The hon. Member for Belfast, East also said that the boards were not allowing open competition. The boards will purchase places from as wide a range of homes as possible. After all, it is their duty to offer their clients choice. It would not be in their interests to negotiate only a small number of block contracts. Boards are being encouraged to draw up clear specifications for their care requirements and to invite tenders from those interested in providing such care. That would include members of the association which the hon. Gentleman mentioned.
My noble Friend will wish to ensure that the boards' contractual operations are monitored carefully, so that clients' needs come first. The boards' primary duty will be to seek tenders against very precise specifications.
The hon. Member for South Down asked about approval for the closure of statutory homes. I can assure him that the case for the closure of any board homes must be defended by the board concerned and presented to the Minister. Then the Minister has to decide whether he prefers to approve the board's decision. That process has led certain hon. Members to say that consultation with the Minister had been refused.
I was the Minister responsible for health and personal social services for nearly 18 months, and I remember that there were many requests for meetings and consultations on behalf of homes and other organisations. The practice is that, if there is a decision to be taken by a health and social services board, that decision must be taken first. Then, if the matter is passed to the Minister because it is major or controversial, consultations with him are welcomed, and are carried out. If we refuse to meet a delegation, that is merely because the proper time for such a meeting is after the local board has made its decision.

Mr. McGrady: The Minister has missed the point. De facto if not de jure, the homes are closed before the Minister has an opportunity to say whether they should be closed. The action on the ground by the health board is to run down the home by whatever means possible so as to ensure that it is not viable. The board then presents a valid case for closure to the Minister. The point we made was that representation should be allowed to take place with the Minister before that process is entered into.

Mr. Hanley: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. If he wants to put specific cases to my noble Friend Lord Arran, I should be grateful if he would do so. I would certainly deprecate practices such as he has described.
The hon. Member for South Down asked whether all homes had been consulted. As I have said, there was earlier consultation. In 1988, the consultation document was sent to every home owner and the published proposals went to every home owners' body in existence at the time. I have -already mentioned the subordinate legislation—the regulations—which will be issued next week. I have already promised hon. Members that if they want a copy of those, they can receive one.
The hon. Member for South Down said that small homes were not defined. They are defined in paragraph 4(5) as homes providing
residential accommodation with both board and personal care for fewer than 4 persons".


The important point is that we do not clutter up small homes with a tremendous amount of legislation. That would be wrong. The small homes should be of the right standard and they should be subjected to some tests. However, the full rigour of the law would mean only that small groups of people helping others out would feel that they were under a weight of legislation.
I was asked why it had taken so long for the legislation to come through from 1985. One reason, as I mentioned earlier, is that legislation already exists to regulate the registration and inspection of residential care homes in Northern Ireland and there is separate legislation to regulate the registration and inspection of nursing homes.
Until the early 1980s, there was no significant increase in establishments. We have referred to the new establishments which have been created. The House may not know that between 1982 and 1987, the number of places in nursing homes rose from 347 to 1,564—an increase of 350 per cent. Consultation began at that stage.
I do not deny that there have been unavoidable pressures and priorities within the Department, such as the major review of community care policy, and the need to consider and to provide at short notice for the legislative provisions required to implement the Government's other policy objectives on community care in Northern Ireland. However, the delay enabled us to gain valuable experience from the Registered Homes Act 1984, so it has helped us in providing for vulnerable people in a community setting.
The hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) asked why the Registered Homes (Amendment) Act 1991, which refers to the registration of small homes, was not made directly applicable to Northern Ireland. That is a fair question. The answer is that it would not have been possible. The 1991 Act amended the 1984 Act, which does not apply to Northern Ireland. The existing Northern Ireland legislation already required small homes to be registered. The order re-enacts the existing Northern Ireland provision and states specifically what will be required of small homes as opposed to larger homes.
The hon. Member for Upper Bann also pointed out that mental nursing homes are a separate category in the 1984 Act and he wanted to know why there was no mention of such homes in the order. In providing for the registration of mental nursing homes as a separate category of nursing home, the Registered Homes Act 1984 seeks to make special provision in the case of cancellation of registration or the death of the registered person for patients in the home detained under the Mental Health Act 1983.
Replication of such a provision in Northern Ireland legislation is not required because a mentally disordered person can be compulsorily detained under the Mental Health (Northern Ireland) Order 1986 only in a statutory hospital or institution—in practice, a psychiatric or mental handicap hospital or unit—or in a private hospital as defined in article 90 of part 7 of the 1986 order. There are currently no such private hospitals in Northern Ireland. Therefore, article 90 has not been brought into effect.
It is not thought necessary to define a special category of mental nursing home because in Northern Ireland people with a mental illness or mental handicap may be admitted to nursing homes, but only on a voluntary basis. The registration and inspection powers accorded to boards

by this order in respect of nursing homes will enable the boards to safeguard the welfare of all patients of nursing homes whatever may be their individual health status or care needs.
The hon. Member for Upper Bann and the hon. Member for North Down referred to justices of the peace. The hon. Member for Antrim, North believed that there was sloppy drafting of the term "justice of the peace". I pay tribute to the noble people who take up the responsibilities of justices of the peace in Northern Ireland.
The 1984 Act in respect of England and Wales refers to justices of the peace. We followed the term in the drafting of the order because the Northern Ireland courts service had to examine the issue. Once the issue had been examined, the service felt that it should be approved because of the need for urgent cancellation of a licence. As the hon. Member for North Down said, if an unsuitable person is running a home, that person should be put out of business as soon as possible.
The hon. Member for Antrim, North asked me to define "widespread" in terms of consultation. Clearly, that is a matter of opinion. The hon. Gentleman also referred to the home at Broughshane. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will write to me or to my noble Friend Lord Arran. The hon. Gentleman said that my noble Friend is aware of the case, but I assure him that I shall ask for the matter to be investigated again. That applies also to the serious case involving the death to which he referred.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I have already contacted Lord Arran.

Mr. Hanley: The Department has assured me that it is not aware of that. If it is meant to be aware of it, we shall certainly look into it again.

Rev. Ian Paisley: The Minister's colleague has replied to me. I have a letter on my desk saying that he had received my message and that he had taken care of it. He was indignant that the board had done in Broughshane what it should not have done.

Mr. Hanley: I am grateful for that information. Neither I nor the officials advising me today were aware of that and I apologise for that. However, if my noble Friend Lord Arran knows about the matter, I am sure that he is dealing with it properly.
There are four or five other points to which I could refer. However, I hope that the House will have heard enough about the order to give it the same treatment as was given to the main legislation—that is, to allow it to go through without a Division. I am grateful to the hon. Member for North Down for his comments. If the order is lost, however, it will not be just for a month, as some hon. Members have stated. We shall have to republish a proposal, reconsult and queue again for parliamentary time—and the very people to whom the hon. Gentleman referred will suffer. We would not be waiting for the Danes before enacting the legislation"it might take a lot longer than that.
Hon. Members will agree that I have listened carefully to the points that have been made and I hope that I have dealt with the vast majority of them. I remain convinced that the provisions in the draft order will make a significant contribution to safeguarding the welfare of people in Northern Ireland who require care in private voluntary sector residential care homes and nursing homes. I commend the order to the House.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 187, Noes 147.

Division No. 85]
[10 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Gill, Christopher


Alexander, Richard
Gillan, Cheryl


Amess, David
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Ancram, Michael
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Arbuthnot, James
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Hague, William


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)


Ashby, David
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Hampson, Dr Keith


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Hanley, Jeremy


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Hargreaves, Andrew


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Haselhurst, Alan


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Hawkins, Nick


Bates, Michael
Hawksley, Warren


Bendall, Vivian
Heald, Oliver


Beresford, Sir Paul
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Hendry, Charles


Booth, Hartley
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Boswell, Tim
Horam, John


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Bowden, Andrew
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Bowis, John
Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)


Brandreth, Gyles
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Brazier, Julian
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Bright, Graham
Hunter, Andrew


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Jack, Michael


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Jenkin, Bernard


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Jessel, Toby


Burns, Simon
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Burt, Alistair
Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)


Butler, Peter
Kilfedder, Sir James


Butterfill, John
King, Rt Hon Tom


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Knapman, Roger


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Carrington, Matthew
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Carttiss, Michael
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)


Cash, William
Knox, David


Chaplin, Mrs Judith
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Chapman, Sydney
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Churchill, Mr
Legg, Barry


Clappison, James
Leigh, Edward


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Lidington, David


Colvin, Michael
Lightbown, David


Congdon, David
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Lord, Michael


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Luff, Peter


Couchman, James
McLoughlin, Patrick


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Malone, Gerald


Day, Stephen
Mans, Keith


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Marlow, Tony


Dicks, Terry
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Dover, Den
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Duncan, Alan
Merchant, Piers


Elletson, Harold
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Emery, Sir Peter
Moss, Malcolm


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Neubert, Sir Michael


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Oppenheim, Phillip


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Page, Richard


Evennett, David
Paice, James


Faber, David
Patnick, Irvine


Fabricant, Michael
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Porter, David (Waveney)


Fishburn, Dudley
Powell, William (Corby)


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Redwood, John


Forth, Eric
Richards, Rod


Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Riddick, Graham


Freeman, Roger
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


French, Douglas
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Gallie, Phil
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Gardiner, Sir George
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan
Sackville, Tom





Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas
Viggers, Peter


Shaw, David (Dover)
Walden, George


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian
Waller, Gary


Sims, Roger
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Waterson, Nigel


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Wheeler, Sir John


Speed, Sir Keith
Whittingdale, John


Spink, Dr Robert
Widdecombe, Ann


Sproat, Iain
Wilkinson, John


Stephen, Michael
Willetts, David


Stern, Michael
Wilshire, David


Streeter, Gary
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Sweeney, Walter
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Sykes, John
Wood, Timothy


Temple-Morris, Peter
Yeo, Tim


Thomason, Roy
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)



Thurnham, Peter
Tellers for the Ayes:


Townend, John (Bridlington)
Mr. Andrew MacKay and Mr. Timothy Kirkhope.


Trend, Michael



Twinn, Dr Ian





NOES


Ainger, Nick
Hood, Jimmy


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Allen, Graham
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Armstrong, Hilary
Hoyle, Doug


Ashton, Joe
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Austin-Walker, John
Hume, John


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Hutton, John


Barnes, Harry
Illsley, Eric


Bayley, Hugh
Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)


Beggs, Roy
Jamieson, David


Benton, Joe
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Bermingham, Gerald
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)


Berry, Dr. Roger
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Blunkett, David
Jowell, Tessa


Boyce, Jimmy
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Bradley, Keith
Keen, Alan


Burden, Richard
Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)


Byers, Stephen
Khabra, Piara S.


Callaghan, Jim
Kilfoyle, Peter


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Kirkwood, Archy


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Leighton, Ron


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Lewis, Terry


Chisholm, Malcolm
Litherland, Robert


Clapham, Michael
Livingstone, Ken


Clelland, David
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Loyden, Eddie


Coffey, Ann
McAllion, John


Connarty, Michael
McCartney, Ian


Cousins, Jim
McFall, John


Cryer, Bob
McGrady, Eddie


Cummings, John
McKelvey, William


Davidson, Ian
Mackinlay, Andrew


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
McMaster, Gordon


Dixon, Don
McNamara, Kevin


Donohoe, Brian H.
Madden, Max


Dowd, Jim
Mahon, Alice


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Mallon, Seamus


Eastham, Ken
Marek, Dr John


Enright, Derek
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Etherington, Bill
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Martlew, Eric


Fatchett, Derek
Meale, Alan


Flynn, Paul
Michael, Alun


Foster, Derek (B'p Auckland)
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Fyfe, Maria
Milburn, Alan


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Miller, Andrew


Godsiff, Roger
Morley, Elliot


Golding, Mrs Llin
Mowlam, Marjorie


Grocott, Bruce
Mullin, Chris


Gunnell, John
Murphy, Paul


Hall, Mike
O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)


Hanson, David
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Heppell, John
O'Hara, Edward


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Paisley, Rev Ian


Hinchliffe, David
Parry, Robert


Home Robertson, John
Pike, Peter L.






Pope, Greg
Stevenson, George


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Stott, Roger


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Prescott, John
Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)


Primarolo, Dawn
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Quin, Ms Joyce
Trimble, David


Reid, Dr John
Tyler, Paul


Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)
Walley, Joan


Roche, Mrs. Barbara
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Rogers, Allan
Watson, Mike


Ross, William (E Londonderry)
Wicks, Malcolm


Sheerman, Barry
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Short, Clare
Wise, Audrey


Skinner, Dennis
Wright, Dr Tony


Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)



Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)
Tellers for the Noes:


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Mr. Martin Jones and Mr. Thomas McAvoy.


Spellar, John



Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Registered Homes (Northern Ireland) Order 1992, which was laid before this House on 19th October, be approved.

PETITION

Pit Closures

Mr. David Hanson (De1yn): I rise to present a petition, which has been signed by 16,000 of my constituents and other residents of north-east Wales, in support of the Point of Ayr colliery, which is threatened with closure.
The petition draws attention to the increasing reliance that Fiddler's Ferry power station places on imported coal, which is unacceptable, and to the fact that new mining methods have been introduced at the pit which have not been taken into account when assessing its viability.
The petition ends by asking
your honourable House to instruct British Coal to withdraw the proposal to close Point of Ayr colliery.
I fully support the petition and I am pleased to see that my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Hall), who represents the area around Fiddler's Ferry power station, is here to support it.

To lie upon the Table.

Sex Offences (Clinics)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. MacKay.]

Mr. Graham Allen: This issue is serious and difficult to talk about. It is certainly difficult for Parliament to discuss and for the children who are the victims of sexual abuse. I raise this matter with some sadness because I had an Adjournment debate on a similar issue three years ago. One of my main questions this evening is, what progress has been made on that sensitive and important matter since I first raised it in the House? It is clear that we need to do far more to help the victims of the sexual abuse of children—the children themselves—and to develop preventive measures to reduce the incidence of that horrendous crime. We must stop it before it can occur.
The problem that I highlighted in the Chamber some three years ago has not gone away. Indeed, the fact that we find it a little easier to talk about it these days means that the full extent of the phenomenon is only just becoming known. I want the Minister to lay before the House tonight the progress that has been made in the past three years and, more importantly, the Government's plans to extend the victims' ability to be assisted and society's ability to ensure that the perpetration of those crimes cannot take place.
It is customary in Adjournment debates for the time to be split between the person who raises the debate and the Minister who replies. Having spoken to the Minister, I hope to do it slightly differently this time. I spoke at great length on the subject in 1989 and I am happy to send a copy of my speech in Hansard to any hon. Members who wants further elaboration of the case. With the Minister's permission, I want to allow him a little more time to outline the Government's progress and future plans on the matter.
I say that with all due respect to the individuals and organisations that have briefed me in the past few days since I was fortunate enough to draw the Adjournment debate. Those organisations included the National Children's Home; the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children; Nottinghamshire county council's social services department, which has been doing an excellent job in individual cases recently; the child abuse studies unit at the university of North London; and many others. They are all deeply concerned about the debate but want to hear what the Government have to say rather than another exposition of the case from me.
I wish to make three brief points for the Minister to consider, not only tonight but also in more measured time outside the Chamber. First, there is only one private clinic for the treatment of sex offenders. It is important that, where those people are seen to need treatment, treatment should be made available for them. I have proposed in the past that there should be not just one private clinic to try to break into the problem but a clinic in each region of the United Kingdom. There should be a centre so that we do not have to reinvent the wheel whenever a horrendous case comes to the public's attention. There would then be a body of knowledge so that victims could be assisted wherever they were found.
Secondly, we need a national centre so that all the research done by the police, the social services, voluntary


bodies and academics can be brought together centrally. With that knowledge pooled, the best practices can be better distributed around those who need to know the information.
Thirdly, I want the Minister to consider a question which I have pursued since 1989 and which I shall pursue again this evening—the total funding for research into how victims of child sexual abuse can be helped even more than they are now. I appreciate that there are tremendous difficulties currently and I am sure that the Minister has been battling valiantly to save existing programmes, let alone extend them. However, for an investment of £1 million, £2 million or £3 million—peanuts in public expenditure terms—the sum total of human misery can be dramatically reduced by ensuring that victims of child sexual offences are properly assisted to rebuild their shattered lives. With that remark, I shall leave the remaining minutes to the Minister, who has kindly consented to take occasional interventions.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Tim Yeo): I congratulate the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) on securing this debate on an important subject. I know that his interest in the subject goes back over a number of years, and I read the report of his earlier Adjournment debate on the issue in 1989.
We are in complete agreement in the House on the seriousness of the issue and the fact that it needs to be considered by the House from time to time. Therefore, I am glad of the opportunity to update the hon. Gentleman on the progress that we have made in the past three years. The subject is highly sensitive, and one that, for too long, society has regarded as taboo. That fact has inhibited discussion on the subject, and the fact that there is now a greater openness in our thinking and discussion of it is itself a prerequisite, and helpful in achieving the sort of solutions that we both want. It is appropriate to take this opportunity to clarify the current position on the treatment for sexual offenders and their victims, who are all too often children. The subject obviously affects Government Departments other than my own, but I am glad to have the chance to respond to the hon. Gentleman.
In the case of convicted sex offenders, the provision of clinics or treatment centres based within the community to deal with their offending behaviour is essentially a matter for local provision. I heard with interest the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that there should be more regional centres. It is important to recognise that, before a perpetrator of sexual offences is referred or directed to such centres, he would, of course, have been tried in the courts and a decision taken as to whether he is suitable for a sentence other than that of imprisonment. The paramount interest has to be one of public protection. In the great majority of more serious cases, the court decides that it is right for sex offenders to go to prison. Some of those men may come later into treatment as a condition of parole after serving their prison sentence.
For the small number of men who are convicted of sexual offences but do not go to prison—currently fewer than 1,500 a year—we believe that, in carefully controlled circumstances, community treatment can have an important and effective role in reducing their sexual offending behaviour. The probation service has played a

major part in that development in collaboration with local authorities, the national health service and the independent sector.
A recent Home Office study found that nearly all of the 55 probation areas in England and Wales has in place community-based treatment programmes for sex offenders, and those that did not have such programmes were planning them. The majority of those programmes are not residentially based but require the offender, as part of his probation order, regularly to attend a session at which, probably in a group with other sex offenders, he is confronted with his offending behaviour, and his distorted thinking about it, and its consequences for his victims. The work, which is sometimes called "victim empathy", means that, although the probation service cannot claim to "cure" sexual offending, it can aim to contain it so that sex offenders are helped to a position where they are sufficiently aware of their cycle of offending behaviour and sufficiently in control of it not to commit further offences.
In some cases, where it is not possible or appropriate for sex offenders to continue living in the home, they can as part of probation orders be housed in a probation hostel. Whilst treatment does not normally take place in those hostels, they provide a supportive but a challenging background to it; hostel staff have a part to play in encouraging offenders to continue the process of confronting their offence, begun by their colleagues in treatment.
In other cases, the probation service may have taken a decision that it would be an appropriate use of resources to place sex offenders on probation orders, and also on parole licence—for example, in the Gracewell institute. That institute combines treatment and residence, and provides more long-term supervision than can be achieved without an accommodation requirement. The decision on whether to use the institute is at the discretion of individual probation areas and will become increasingly dependent on both the resources that they have and on the sort of in-house provision that they can provide. Increasingly, that in-house provision will draw heavily on the practice developed at the Gracewell institute.
The individual needs of sex offenders do, of course, vary. So do the health and social service responses, which include a range of behaviourial and psycho-therapeutic techniques, as well as medication. There is a good deal of professional debate about the management of sex offenders, whether all or only some are amenable to treatment, and the presence or otherwise of links between sexual offending and any mental disorder.
As a result, sex offenders are assessed by psychiatrists and psychologists and other professionals in a variety of settings. Some may then attend specialised services or be seen at out-patient or day clinics; others may not be suitable for health care intervention. Some with mental health care needs may be in hospital or other mental health provision. They will include some people detained under the Mental Health Act 1983 who meet the criteria of that legislation relating to mental disorder. The Act makes it clear that a person may not be dealt with under its provisions by reason only of promiscuity or other immoral conduct or sexual deviancy.
The Department of Health and the Home Office review of services for mentally disabled offenders, known as the Reed review, whose final report we shall be publishing shortly, produced a discussion paper on sex offenders with mental health needs. That was issued for consultation in


June and focused on the introduction by the prison service of structured programmes for sex offenders, the implications of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 for health and social services, and proposals for further research. We shall be looking at the recommendations made in that paper as part of our consideration of the review.
The Criminal Justice Act is likely to increase calls on health and social services in two areas—at the point of sentence, and in support of treatment programmes. Such involvement is necessary to ensure that offenders receive a proper multidisciplinary assessment and, leading on from that, possible access to services. Health and social services will be involved in validating and monitoring programme content and in professional supervision.
At present only a small number of clinics are known to be providing specialised care for sex offenders as a specific client group. These do so mainly as part of services for a broader range of clients. Apart from the Gracewell clinic in Birmingham, probably the best known is the Portman clinic in London, which receives Government support through top-sliced funding. The allocation this year for the Portman and the adjacent Tavistock clinic is £4·5 million.
Some of the specialised mental health services that provide in part for sex offenders with a mental disorder are also supported through central capital or revenue funding. These include regional secure units, for which capital funding this year has been increased to £18 million, from £3 million last year. They also include the special hospitals, which provide psychiatric services in conditions of high security. The future of these services is being examined by a working group announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health in the light of the Reed review and the report by Sir Louis Blom-Cooper on Ashworth hospital.
The Gracewell clinic, which is currently being evaluated, is the first residential clinic of its kind and receives a number of its referrals from health and local authorities. It provides full-time treatment programmes for sex offenders who need intensive therapy to gain control of their behaviour. It can also provide assessments of adult and young offenders, as well as risk assessment reports. Training and research are important elements. The Home Office is currently helping to fund the evaluation project, which is based on the Gracewell clinic and on several probation areas. This will be helpful in determining future service development.
I now turn to the question of child victims of sexual abuse. The Department of Health launched a centrally funded child abuse treatment initiative in 1990–91. The first stage of the initiative was the National Children's Home survey of existing treatment facilities for abused children and young perpetrators. The Department of Health is currently making grants to support a number of projects by voluntary organisations providing different types and ranges of treatment. These include a residential therapeutic centre for children, family service units working with families facing severe difficulties and children who have been abused, a child and family therapy project addressing the problems of child sexual abuse, a treatment facility for adolescent sex offenders.
Two studies, one of sexually abused children and adolescents, the other of young sex offenders, which will be evaluated to establish the characteristics of the treatments

which are associated with more and less successful outcomes, are also under way. Various projects undertaken by the National Children's Home include a telephone and face-to-face counselling service, a child protection system and a pilot study of projects working with young offenders. There is additionally a research project by the Institute of Child Health to evaluate the effectiveness of the various models of treatment for sexually abused children and young sex offenders.
In 1991–92, £300,000 was made available for projects undertaken under the treatment initiative. This has increased to more than £400,000 this year. The total made available over the five-year period since the inception of the initiative will be £1·8 million. Many of the more severely abused children will require treatment by the NHS. Every child suspected of having been sexually abused will need to be assessed under the child protection procedures set out in the Government's guidance "Working Together". Not all these cases will be proven. Of those who are, all will need protection, but not all will show emotional disturbance significant enough to require additional specialist therapeutic intervention.
I should like to focus briefly on another aspect of our work in relation to child sexual abuse—the importance that we attach to up-to-date, properly targeted and thoroughly evaluated training. In this respect, we have achieved a great deal through our centrally funded child abuse training initiative. This is now a well-established scheme to stimulate training of staff from different agencies in child protection, through support for selected projects and courses. Since the initiative was announced in 1986, we have given nearly £3 million in grants to a diverse range of voluntary organisations and institutions for different training materials and events.
We began the first phase of the initiative with two projects. One, which we have now supported for several years, took the form of a course designed for experienced professionals from a range of disciplines, working at the sharp end with child sexual abuse. It aims to give trainers additional skills both in training and in promoting assessment and treatment services provision for abused children and their families. The course has been administered at the department of psychological medicine based at the Institute of Child Health, Great Ormond Street hospital.
The second of the earliest projects was a training advisory resource based at the National Children's Bureau. We are now supporting the successor to that resource, in the shape of the child abuse training unit, also based at the bureau. As well as producing its own material, it offers an evaluation and consultancy service on training related to child abuse including child sexual abuse.
Since those early longer-term resources were established, the child abuse training initiative has enabled us to support an increasing number of specific projects with different voluntary organisations. One major partner has been the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, with a grant of £800,000 over three years, ending last year, towards the national training centre in Leicester. Other projects have been designed to stimulate multidisciplinary work, such as work by the English Nursing Board, to determine an effective model of teaching and learning in child protection among social services and health professionals.
In the crucial area of investigation of sexual abuse, we are funding the Open university to produce a training pack on interviewing in cases of suspected sexual assault on a child.

Mr. Allen: I am sure that the Minister will want to join me in paying tribute to members of staff of voluntary organisations and social service departments who have to deal with these offences. Those of us who have had to deal with them on a constituency basis have found them stomach-churning, and those who have to deal with them from start to finish, certainly in Nottinghamshire, are often in need of therapy to help them to come to terms with some of the horrific details. I am sure that the Minister will agree that these people are nothing less than heroic.

Mr. Yeo: I am happy to join the hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to those professionals working for the voluntary organisations and the local authorities. Their work is among the most distressing that I have ever encountered, dealing with situations which are horrific to those of us who have what I would call normal instincts. Some difficult and sensitive judgements often have to be made about whether a family is capable of being rebuilt, whether relationships can be retrieved, or whether more direct intervention is needed.
The Open university work will build on and amplify the memorandum of good practice issued by my Department and the Home Office last August. The memorandum was drawn up in consultation with a number of voluntary organisations in the light of the implementation of the important child evidence provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 1991. I shall be launching the Open university training material early next year.
Only last week, I was glad to welcome the training manual produced by the voluntary organisation Kidscape, which provides material for people directly caring in some way for children, many of whom may not think of themselves as having a child protection role at all. With the benefit of this material, first-line carers such as health visitors, child minders, foster parents, day care workers, school nurses and nursery nurses may be able to help children to protect themselves, and the carers themselves will have a greater confidence about the work that they undertake with children who have suffered sexual abuse.
The hon. Gentleman will be familiar with a recent case in Nottingham, which he did not mention but which has been in all our minds recently. It was a case of alleged sexual abuse in which the local authority wanted the person concerned to leave the family home. It was not a criminal case, but it was the subject of an application to the High Court, so I do not want to make any detailed comment about it, but the example is instructive in a number of ways.
It is for the local statutory and voluntary organisations to assess the need and provision of treatment services for child sexual abusers, in co-operation with one another.
In the Nottingham case, local arrangements were eventually made to fund the person concerned at the Gracewell clinic. The Department looks for opportunities to promote best practice in suspected cases of sexual abuse of children and it is due to host a continuation of the series of annual national conferences of the chairmen of area child protection committees. Those should provide a

chance to raise the issue of the treatment of suspected sexual abusers and make the subject a high priority on the agenda of those committees for future action.

Mr. Allen: I hope that the Minister will take a personal interest in the way that that side of the problem develops. The question of best practice is fundamental to achieving a solution where a solution is humanly possible. The best practice was not being deployed in the case to which the Minister referred, through no malice on the part of any of the parties involved.
It is instructive that the Nottinghamshire social services department, one of the best in the country, sadly with all too much experience in dealing with such cases, did not immediately make the connection that the district health authority could, in certain circumstances, step in and pay the £15,000 cost for a year's treatment for this particular individual at Gracewell. That in itself tells us something. Even where there is awareness of the problem, best practice connections are not always made.
The Minister, from his privileged vantage point at national level, could do much to ensure that local authorities, voluntary organisations and district health authorities pull together to make sure that such a situation does not occur again.

Mr. Yeo: The hon. Gentleman is quite right. There is a variety of sources from which funds may be available to pay for treatment at a place such as the Gracewell institute, and the health service route will certainly be the appropriate method of referral and financial support for some patients.
If we are to promote good practice around the country, it is clearly crucial to establish the closest possible relationships and the best possible collaboration between the social services and health authorities, in this context and, indeed, in others. We are keen to promote that spirit of co-operation so that alternatives are considered for each case. I hope that, in that way, we can arrive at the right solution for every offender or potential offender.
Our research initiative on child protection should be ready to publish some of its findings next year, and the subject of sexual abuse continues to be a priority on our agenda. Back in 1988, we identified five key issues—whether to remove the people concerned from the home; the co-ordination of services; parental experience of investigation; control within the family; and routine treatment and outcome. New research projects have been funded as other issues concerned with the subject have been identified.
So far, the research initiative has consisted of 13 projects, centring around three areas: patterns of abuse, the operation of a child protection system, and questions addressing intervention and outcome, especially routine intervention. In addition to spending on projects covering both physical and sexual abuse of children, the amount allocated for research into child sexual abuse has increased considerably over the equivalent sum three years ago. In the Department of Health, it is about four times greater than it was in 1989; and across my Department, the Home Office and the Scottish Office social work services group, this type of expenditure has more than tripled over the same period.
The effective dissemination of research is also vital to ensure that findings are effective in practice, and that they influence the delivery of services. In 1985, my Department


produced a document, "Social Work Decisions in Child Care", which provided a digest of research findings of the time. Last year it was followed by an equally successful publication, "Looking After Children: Assessing Outcomes in Child Care", produced by an independent working party. A dissemination programme, now in the discussion stage, is planned for next year with the intention of publishing the findings of the studies in their own right. That will allow the material to be more accessible to practitioners, trainers, managers and students.
Dissemination of information about child abuse is vital. I welcome the recent issue of a "Strategic Statement on Working with Abusers" from the interdepartmental group on child abuse. The group comprises representatives from several Departments, and provides a forum in which

relevant child protection issues can be considered. The group noted that, although the major focus of work in the field of child abuse had been concentrated on the investigation and management of abuse, there was a growing interest in the treatment of the abused child and the abuser.
To forestall piecemeal development in that regard, the group has established a sub-group on working with offenders, with the dual remit of pooling information about the range and nature of available treatment facilities and developing a strategic approach to the subject to include both research and development work. The strategic statement on working with abusers—

The motion having been made after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at seventeen minutes to Eleven o'clock.